Over a 24 hour period, starting Monday morning with the death of a 14 year-old, there were six people injured in a total of five shootings in Newark.
Newark, once a cultural mecca in New Jersey - and much of the country - has in recent decades faced high crime rates, consistently putting the city ranked highest in the country among crime. Before 2006, a significant amount of that crime was taking place within the governing body of the city when former Mayor Sharpe James, who is now a convicted felon serving a 27-month prison term, used to be in charge. Since then, Mayor Cory Booker has taken crime and pubic safety head-on, though still faces significant challenges such as those 24 hours demonstrate. As reported by NJ.com, Mayor Booker said, "We're seeing still some progress but the last week or two has shown us that we still have a long way to go"
Several of the victims on Monday were innocent bystandars, such as one 62 year-old resident who was shot in the hip by a gang related drive-by as she was taking out the trash in front of her apartment.
Clearly there is no simple solution to this problem. It is obvious, more than ever, however, that intelligent and forward thinking policy and culture change are needed to ensure that our communities are safe and that no resident need worry about their safety when taking out their trash.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Making The Problem Worse: Sweet Sixteen Broken Up, 10 Kids Arrested In Parsippany
Last Thursday night, Parsippany Police broke up a sweet 16 party after receiving a noise complaint.
Five officers responded to a house at around 1130pm after receiving reports of screaming and loud noises. The officers entered the house to discover a large amount of young people under 21 drinking, a few over 21, and the homeowner.
10 people under 21 were arrested and issued summonses, in addition to the homeowner who was also charged with providing alcohol to minors.
Do we really think that charging these young people with a crime will deter them? Or even more fundamentally, were they really doing something wrong? There were no reports of violence, of drunk driving, or of anything dangerous, but rather the "problem" itself was that alcohol was being consumed. And with older people and a parent present.
The only thing this accomplished was teaching the parents to not consume alcohol with their children and children not be loud when they drink. Anyone who thinks that arrests like these actually deter young people from drinking is entirely ignorant of the problems of alcohol abuse among young people and need to face the facts: Young people drink, and because of counter-productive policies that encourage underground drinking, they are drinking more excessively than they used to. If we want to break this cycle we will need to ditch the failed ideology that has created this problem and take a new outlook on how to keep young people safe with alcohol.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20090811/UPDATES01/90811025/1005/NEWS01/Police+break+up+Sweet+16+party+in+Parsippany++10+charged
Five officers responded to a house at around 1130pm after receiving reports of screaming and loud noises. The officers entered the house to discover a large amount of young people under 21 drinking, a few over 21, and the homeowner.
10 people under 21 were arrested and issued summonses, in addition to the homeowner who was also charged with providing alcohol to minors.
Do we really think that charging these young people with a crime will deter them? Or even more fundamentally, were they really doing something wrong? There were no reports of violence, of drunk driving, or of anything dangerous, but rather the "problem" itself was that alcohol was being consumed. And with older people and a parent present.
The only thing this accomplished was teaching the parents to not consume alcohol with their children and children not be loud when they drink. Anyone who thinks that arrests like these actually deter young people from drinking is entirely ignorant of the problems of alcohol abuse among young people and need to face the facts: Young people drink, and because of counter-productive policies that encourage underground drinking, they are drinking more excessively than they used to. If we want to break this cycle we will need to ditch the failed ideology that has created this problem and take a new outlook on how to keep young people safe with alcohol.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20090811/UPDATES01/90811025/1005/NEWS01/Police+break+up+Sweet+16+party+in+Parsippany++10+charged
Monday, August 3, 2009
2 South Carolina Judges Rule 21 Year-Old Drinking Age Unconstitutional
Two South Carolina County judges ruled that the 21 year-old drinking age is unconstitutional.
Aiken County Chief Magistrate Rodger Edmunds and Richland County Magistrate Mel Maurer ruled that laws could only prohibit people under 21 from purchasing alcohol, and could not prohibit people under 21 from consuming or possessing alcohol. The main justificiation for the federally mandated 21 year-old drinking age is using the often-quoted commerce clause of the US Constitution, which allows Congress to regulate issues involving interstate commerce.
As reported by CarolinaLive.com "Both decisions relied on a 2008 SC State Supreme Court ruling that overturned a state law banning 18 to 20 year olds from possessing handguns."
Both cases have been appealed, and will be heard in South Carolina's circuit court of appeals.I will post updates to these cases as they progress through the judicial system.
Sources and Reading
http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/local/article/2_south_carolina_judges_challenge_drinking_age/49856/
http://www.carolinalive.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=332096
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1627
Aiken County Chief Magistrate Rodger Edmunds and Richland County Magistrate Mel Maurer ruled that laws could only prohibit people under 21 from purchasing alcohol, and could not prohibit people under 21 from consuming or possessing alcohol. The main justificiation for the federally mandated 21 year-old drinking age is using the often-quoted commerce clause of the US Constitution, which allows Congress to regulate issues involving interstate commerce.
As reported by CarolinaLive.com "Both decisions relied on a 2008 SC State Supreme Court ruling that overturned a state law banning 18 to 20 year olds from possessing handguns."
Both cases have been appealed, and will be heard in South Carolina's circuit court of appeals.I will post updates to these cases as they progress through the judicial system.
Sources and Reading
http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/local/article/2_south_carolina_judges_challenge_drinking_age/49856/
http://www.carolinalive.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=332096
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1627
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)