Campus Crime: Legal, Social, and Policy Perspectives - Report Example

Number: The history of the problem (college & Universities) Currently conducted researchesprove that, across the US, College and University campuses face the perceived aggravating crisis of violence on and off the boundaries of campuses. Violent crimes involve students, staff, administration, and faculty whether the involved individual (s) is the offender (s) or the victim (s) (Thomas & Nicoletti). It has always been hard to define homicide, but various researches indicate that varying parties especially in law have helped in gaining more understanding about homicide. In order to determine the essence of the crimes involved on and off campuses, it is profound to investigate on what makes an action a crime. Referring to the effort by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a violent crime can be amongst the four offenses: non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, murder, aggravated assault and robbery. Statistics by the Office of Postsecondary Education in the U.S. has helped realize the reality of the violent crimes that happen, especially on campuses. The statistics cover a period of three years, 1998 to 2000 involving various colleges and universities in the United States of America (Hudge, 2000). A key factor in such a research was the involved population. The projections by the National Center concerned with the Education Statistics reveal that the number of students in colleges and universities in the U.S. was approximated at 14,979,000 in the year 2000. Using such a population, the rate of crimes in campuses and universities can, therefore, be computed. Below is a table describing rates of various crimes as observed in over a given period. U.S. Vs. College Crime Rates, 2000 Crime U.S. Crime Rate College Crime Rate Murder 5.7 0.13 Forcible Rape 32.0 12.4 Robbery 144.9 12.9 Aggravated Assault 323.6 24.3 The involved population is 100,000 persons; the recommended quorum while describing rates of crimes. The table represents the whole of the United States according to the report delivered in the year 2000 titled Crime in the U.S. as well as university and college campuses (Hudge, 2000). Notably, the other types of violent crimes tend to be continuously more as compared to the university and college crime rates. This observation implies that the university and college campuses are safer places for students as they live and receive education as compared to the off campus environment. Given the fact that violence is all over, within and outside campuses, it is thus true to state that campuses face incidences of violent actions initiated by an individual, regardless of the environment. Although the number of men outnumbers that of women who perpetrate homicide, there is a striking representation of the women perpetrators. The major homicide in campuses is referred to as the predatory homicide. In the predatory homicide, the killing is executed by perpetrators by stalking down the victim (s); perpetrators have no prior relationship with such victim (s). More shockingly, there is no solid motivation for which the perpetrator murders, expect the so claimed satisfaction that befalls such a perpetrator. Considering the homicide cases of Florida, the Gemini Killer and Tedy Bundy form the integrals of the, renowned, notorious mass murderers in American history. Gemini Killer and Tedy Bundy preyed on students from colleges. Such perpetrators are scary drifters who lurk themselves in the bushes, often referred to as “stranger danger.” Such homicide incidences are experienced on college and university campuses and are rarely witnessed (Thomas & Nicoletti, 2010). The other types of homicides related to university and college campuses include face-avengers and relationship-based homicides. The avenger homicide involves a series of events whose eventual result is the death of the victim (s). One experiences a sequence of perceived grievances. The previously tried steps of resolving the problem via pro-social means seem inadequate. Consequently, the perpetrator develops fantasies aimed at attaining violent revenge. Usual perpetrators initiate direct or disguised threats regarding the planned violence. Eventually, perpetrators execute the plan as they follow a well-designed plot in order to kill the intended victim (s). Perpetrators murder without considering witnesses or even the individual outcome (Thomas & Nicoletti, 2010). On the other hand, the phenomenon of a person seeking revenge, and on who, forms a complicated composite. Regarding this complicated deal, different students seek revenge on various disciplinary officers or members of the same faculty revenging on each other. Additionally, various incidences have been witnessed concerning members of the same faculty or belonging to different faculties avenging on their colleagues. Implemented Efforts of Addressing Homicide in Campuses. Regarding the predatory homicide, the United State has embarked on implementing effective security tactics have been designed to ensure that the predator is deterred; not the perpetrator. Students are encouraged to establish a common, as well as fair performing platform on college and university campuses. This effort helps discourage animosities which come by ethnicity and jealousies. Additionally, there is the adherence to a universally instituted standard of excellent academic expectations. FBI has significantly engaged in the effort of containing violence on campuses and thereby attaining a better learning environment in terms of safety for every stakeholder involved in the campus environment. The FBI has helped redefine the various types of crimes: non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, murder, aggravated assault and robbery. It is, therefore, easy to move a case in court in order to pursue justice against perpetrators of homicides in campuses. The introduction of counseling groups help change the wrong perception of the minority students who feel discriminated and rejected in the predominantly White college and university campuses. Various learning institutions have adopted strict policies aimed at eliminating hand guns from such learning environments. However, these policies have not been effective since they give room for the permission of carrying concealed hand guns. Proposals Necessary for containing homicides in Campuses. Campuses should adopt the use of strict policies intended at avoiding firearms from campuses. This would hinder the possibility of an individual having a concealed hand gun. The failure of implementing strict policies would result to possession of hand guns that would eventually cause detraction of the learning environment. Holders of the concealed carry permit are not often “law abiding” citizens. There is, thus, the urgent need of amending the policies of controlling hand guns in campuses; such policies should be exclusive and absolute, without leaving a provision for permits of carrying concealed hand guns. Resources and efforts must indicate a continuous improvement in order to attain a properly managed as well as a safer learning environment than we have today. A constant and immediate reporting of violent crimes on the university and college campuses must indicate continuous advancement. This recommendation does not imply that campuses should exclude administrative actions and courts as a means of attaining on-campus remedies. Regular statistics and researches should be adopted to reveal the realities of crime rates on campuses. However, only the accurate accounts of crime rates will help realize essential measurers in dealing with crime rates on campuses. Additionally, statistics on crimes assist in indicating where extra resources and manpower ought to be allocated. Notably, such an effort would generate a short term response and this could have a direct effect on the perception regarding the prevailing safety in campuses. Additionally, accurate accounts of crime rates could also generate a long term effect, where various stakeholders can create as well as manage the safest campuses. Systems of justice should as well be cooperative in delivering justice with an aim of dealing with all forms of homicides. The castigators of homicides, whether within the campuses or in the rest of the society should be subjected to strict laws to serve as examples to other perpetrators (Fisher, 1995). Conclusion and Lessons Learnt. Homicide is a difficult phenomenon to define, yet it has tremendously affected both the campus environment and the rest of society. Different perpetrators of homicides have varying motives, but some lack a sensible motive embarking the cause of their insensible actions of murdering. There are various sources of homicides in university and college campuses: racism, individual to individual competitions, group-group competitions, revenge, amongst other reasons. However, perpetrators such as predatory form an exceptionally weird group of individuals who target students to murder, just to gain a satisfaction that they claim to get after murdering; no sensible reason for their evils. Violence that start from an individual feeling discriminated against should be handled as early as possible through effective measures such standardization of academic expectations. This would hinder the spread of prejudice which might lead to inter group conflicts. Policies, which tend to, alleviate some ethnic group over the other should be abolished. The topic is educative since I have learnt of some of the violent crimes occur in campuses and how they originate. Some are caused by students themselves, others by staff members, faculty members, strangers, amongst other potential perpetrators. I have also learnt that some people may plan to kill others; without the victims even getting a hint that such an evil plan is designed for them. Such perpetrators seek for revenge when they perceive like the social approach of solving the problem in question would fail in effectively addressing the issue. References: Fisher, B. S., Sloan, J. J. (1995). Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Hudge, M. A. (2000). The campus security act. Journal of Security Administration. Savannah, GA. Nicoletti, John & Thomas, S. Sally. (2010). VIOLENCE GOES TO COLLEGE. CHARLES C THOMAS.PUBLISHER LTD. Miller, A. J. (2001). Student perceptions of hate crimes. American Journal of Criminal Justice. Louisville, KY. Whitaker, C. Leighton & Pollard, W. Jeffrey. (1995). Campus Violence: Kinds Causes Cures. The Harworth Press, Inc. Bringhamton. Read More