1) Television Stations – Nothing gets people watching more television then parents grieving over dead children. More viewers means more advertising revenue. People who feel sad are more likely to go out and buy things to be happy. Billions of dollars in marketing possibilities.
2) Police Officers – Over-time means they take home more money. Moreover, they are able to get make the case to the public that they deserve the latest equipment and toys, and that they should be allowed to expand their forces and obtain higher wages and enhanced pension benefits.
3) Retired Police Officers – Many school districts and public places like malls are hiring retired law enforcement as security consultants.
4) District Attorneys – D.A. are able to make their case for re-election by showing they are taking steps to be tough on crime, they are given opportunities to speak and raise their public profile, which helps as they seek higher office with more power and increased pay.
5) Politicians – Politicians have the ability to champion new laws that can play to their base. They can push gun control or take a tough on crime posture, even if their proposals are either meaningless or even harmful to law abiding citizens.
6) Security/Defense Contractors – While mass-shootings are an extremely rare, very low-risk event, businesses, governments, and schools feel public pressure to invest billions in completely needless upgrades to “harden” buildings from attacks.
7) School Employees – Even school employees benefit from mass-shootings, as it’s an excuse to take taxpayer-funded junkets to learn about the how they can improve safety at their school. Who doesn’t mind spending a few hours in a lecture hall to discuss grim topics with consultants if it’s taxpayer-financed junket to Las Vegas or the Atlantic City (with meals and lodging paid for at taxpayer expense)?
There was a time, not all that long ago, when public records weren’t computerized or easily searchable.
If you wanted to go get the facts about a person, like if somebody had a criminal conviction, you had to drive to court house and file a Freedom of Information Act request, and then either you would get invited in to inspect the records in person or you could pay a few bucks to have photo copies of the records delivered to you. In most cases, employers, landlords and others couldn’t be bothered to obtain a person’s conviction record unless they had good reason to be motivated to find such a record. And you needed a suspicion or information to know which court house to look at to get such information.
Likewise, back in the day, much fewer employers or prospective landlords ever asked the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” Crime fears used to be less back in the day, but also it was less of a test of truthfulness, as a prospective employee or housing applicant could lie on the question and never be found out. The problem is with computerized databases, often accessible for a few bucks, it has become very easy for people to find out that information.
Computers really changed the availability of information on individuals.
That’s a fact that can not be understated.
More information is usually a good thing, but the problem is that old criminal convictions are keeping good people out of the workforce and out of good jobs that they would be good at. While reports of landlords and employers denying people prima facia employment or housing based on old criminal convictions is not only illegal but likely uncommon, many people may voluntarily not seek employment or housing because they face that inevitable question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” And that’s a problem.
The thing is answering “Yes” to “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” is embarrassing, and requires an individual to be confident of their own capacities and able to explain their conviction during the interview or housing application process. This is not easy to do, even if the conviction is decades old at this point. It’s a bar that others who do not have an old criminal record face. Making it so that people can truthful say they don’t have an old criminal conviction makes it easier for them to apply and secure the job they need to succeed. Sealed criminal convictions can truthfully be answered as a “no” for all purposes under law.
Most driving records are only public for 3-years after conviction. If you get a speeding ticket or run a red light, after 3 years you no longer have to disclose to your insurer or potential employer that you got the ticket. Bankruptcy and unpaid debts are only public record for 7-years after bankruptcy or the last payment of a late debt, and no longer impacts your credit rating. We do this as a matter of public policy, because we know that while prior behaviors are a predictor of future behavior, after a certain amount of time, current behaviors are more predictive then old behaviors. Old actions often quickly become dated, things we did yesterday don’t reflect upon a person as strongly as what they’ve done more recently.
As a previously convicted individual from nearly twenty years ago, I am glad I no longer have to have this uncomfortable question with potential employers or landlords. I am not who I was in college, and it makes no sense to be actively discouraging individuals who are talented from seeking to better themselves, just because the embarrassment of a decades old conviction hangs around the their necks.
So I got this idea in my head that areas of New York State with a lot of property crime would be areas with a lot of wealth inequality -- some place like Westchester, Manhattan or Ithaca. After all, people in poverty might want to steal the color television from the mansion up the street. But comparing property rates to GINI indexes in New York, the correlation between wealth inequality and property seems fairly weak to say the least.
Sixty-one percent of New Yorkers are either very (21%) or somewhat (40%) concerned that they might be a victim of a crime according to a new survey of New York residents released today from the Siena College Research Institute (SCRI). Fifty-one percent of state residents have been concerned about their or their family’s safety in public places including schools, stores or houses of worship and over a third, 36%, of all New Yorkers have felt threatened over the past year in a public place by a stranger’s behavior.
Forty percent of state residents have spent $100 or more in the last year on goods or services that make them feel safer or more protected from crime. Twelve percent have spent more than $500. About a third have purchased home security cameras (34%) or security lights with motion sensors (32%). A quarter have hired a professionally monitored home security system. One out of every six New Yorkers has taken a self-defense class and 12% have purchased a firearm for self-defense.
Nearly 1 in 10 New Yorkers has over the past year been physically assaulted (9%) and similarly, 9% have been the victim of a burglary. Nearly 40% have witnessed violent or threatening behavior among others in a public setting. Forty-one percent say that they have “never been this worried about their personal safety as they are today” while a majority, 58%, say that they are no more worried about being the victim of a crime today than they have been in the past.
That's how I kind of feel about my bicycle, having to get a heavy bicycle lock and just the number of homeless people and litter downtown. Maybe it's just I'm noticing it more since being away from the city during the pandemic, but it just seems like the streets are a lot rougher then they once were.
For decades, American courts have had to take it on faith that drug-sniffing dogs were impartial. Testimony by a dog's handler, along with training records and credentialing by a local K-9 organization, were usually enough. But the recent spread of body cameras now threatens to upend that faith.
A newly filed federal lawsuit in Texas shows cameras' potential to undermine K-9 unit legitimacy. Houston resident Alek Schott accuses Bexar County Sheriff's deputy Joel Babb of pulling him over on Interstate 35 on false pretenses, and then, when he refused to give permission to search his pickup truck, he says K-9 unit deputy Martin A. Molina III prompted his dog to "alert" to the scent of drugs.
K-9 handler body camera video from Bexar County, Texas. At approximately 1:00, the deputy's right hand is seen in the corner of the screen, gesturing. Alek Schott is suing the sheriff's office, saying that gesture prompted the dog to jump on the door, giving deputies the right to open the truck and search inside. No drugs were found. YouTube "These guys are trying to destroy my life"
Historically, that claim would have been nearly impossible to prove. But in this case, Schott requested and received the officers' body camera footage, giving him almost the same view the K-9 handler had — including the moment the handler's right hand made a gesture toward the attentive dog, which then jumped up on the pickup's door.
"It's clear to me that he's telling the dog to alert," Schott says. "I thought, 'These guys are trying to destroy my life.' "
