It can be traced back that Thomas Hobbes first formulated the idea of deterrence. Advocates of deterrence theory “believe that people choose to obey or violate the law after calculating the gains and consequences of their actions” (Onwudiwe, Odo, Onyeozili). Essentially, as stated above, individuals will engage in crime when the benefit of the crime outweighs the cost of committing the crime (punishment). Personally, I believe that individuals that are part of the Operation Ceasefire end their “street days” because they are mostly scared of the harsh consequences that will follow if they continue to engage in a life of crime. Operation Ceasefire may align well with theories such as deterrence theory, but maybe not so much with others. When …show more content…
This theory simply argues that individuals will eventually engage in crime because the build up of certain strains placed on them by society. This is why those individuals who continue to engage in crime after being part of Ceasefire do so. Arguably, officials and law enforcement personal place too much a strain on these individuals to simply “cease” their crime careers. Further, maybe these officials place much to high of goals for these individuals to achieve. It is important to understand that the individuals that are part of Operation Ceasefire are hardened criminals or future criminals. These are guys that dropped out of school, their dad is in prison, and have lived in poverty their entire life. In other words, for their entire lives they have had a tremendous strain placed upon them. So when law enforcement agencies and city officials try to “scare” these men out of committing crime, it may work for a little while but eventually the strain will prove to be too much, thus ending in further committing …show more content…
However, how a community goes about dealing with this issue is controversial. According to the Office of Justice Programs, Operation Ceasefire “seeks to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in communities.” Officials for Operation Ceasefire advocate for local law enforcement to vamp up patrols in areas where violent crime is common. However, this could be an unintended consequence for those who live in these areas that don’t engage in violence. Essentially, maybe individuals in the community will not like the increased police patrols and will retaliate in a deviant manner. Also, it is important to understand that not all individuals get “chosen” to be part of Operation Ceasefire. Maybe those who don’t pass the screening process to partake will act out. In other words, when they see their friends partaking in the intervention and doing well, those who don’t get chosen may respond in a deviant manner. These are just a few unintended consequences that may be expected when communities implement this
The objective of Operation Ceasefire is to perform comprehensives strategies to seize and prosecute delinquents who may carry firearms, to warn others that the offenders face serious punishment and to deter youth from following the same criminal path as the others. The intervention process is used as a deterrence strategy, it is based on the belief that crimes can be deterred when the cost outweigh the benefits of the crime. It targets high risk youths and violent juvenile delinquents. The program uses the pulling-levers technique which focuses on the prevention of gang violence by convincing gang members that there would be intense punishment following violence or illegal gun use; which would influence them to change their conduct. An important component in the intervention process is the delivery of a straightforward and clear message to only the gang involved youth so that it can target those that are in gangs rather than using resources on those who are not. The message was not a deal with the gang members but preferably was assurance to gang members that violent conduct would cause an instant and
Spergel, I., Chance, R., Ehrensaft, K., Regulus, T., Cane, K., Laseter, R., . . . Alexander, A. (1994, October). Gang Suppression and Intervention: Community Models Research Summary. Retrieved March 23, 2014, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/gangcorr.pdf
The Development of a Stalemate on the Western Front The main reason trenches developed on the western front is due to the failure of the Schlieffen plan, if it had not been for this elaborate quick way to win the war by Germany, trench warfare may never have developed in WWI. As the Germans were being pushed back from Marne they had to dig trenches to protect themselves from the advancing allies, and the allies mirrored them and did the same. The conventional explanation offered by historians for the stalemate on the western front (an area stretching from Belgium all the way down to the Alps) is that by 1914 technology and industrialism had overtaken military strategy and tactics, making them obsolete. Supposedly machine guns and rapid-fire artillery had made the traditional tactics worthless; linear tactics and cavalry charges were things of the past by 1914, and also bad choices were made by inexperienced commanders.
The Development of a Stalemate on the Western Front When the war began in 1914, it was greeted largely with enthusiasm and excitement. General public opinion was that it would be a quick war; it was common to hear people saying it would be 'over by Christmas'. However, when Christmas 1914 arrived, the war was far from over. In fact, both sides had 'dug in' for winter, and there were no signs of the quick and easy victory that each party had expected.
Gun violence in youth has become much more prevalent. Today’s youth are more likely to turn to guns to solve their problems with bullies or to help them to fight a mental illness. Kids are taking guns from their parents or are just going to the streets and buying the guns from random people. Although there are jurisdictions that have started to use gun violence programs to help combat these issues the programs are not found everywhere and are not going to work forever. One such program that we will learn about later on is Operation Ceasefire.
In 2003 as a response to communities with a large amount and growing number of youth gangs the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice, initiated the Gang Reduction Program (GRP) (U.S. Department of Justice 2008). The formation of gangs is seen as a response to system failures and community dysfunction. As a result, one of OJJPD’s anti-gang initiatives is to make communities safer and have a pro-social environment (U.S. Department of Justice 2008). Furthermore, OJJDP plans to provide economic and social opportunities that gangs often promise to new recruits which are often obtained in an illegal and dangerous fashion (U.S. Department of Justice 2008). OJJDP believes that the GRP is capable of addressing the underlying issues for the increasing popularity and intensity of gang activity in specific suburban and rural neighborhoods (U.S. Department of Justice 2008). The program takes an integrative approach to dealing with the issue of increasing membership and participation with gangs. The following will discuss the program’s goal, theoretical basis, methods of operation, and overall effectiveness. After reviewing these major aspects of the GRP I will personally assess the value of this program and conclude whether or not the evidence supporting the program’s efficiency is strong enough for me to recommend it for implementation.
...presented by Giordano et al. and Kreager et al. that note its limitations. Laub and Sampson’s theory is detailed and extensive in its explanation of why individuals desist from crime.
Gang violence is a very serious downfall living in Chicago. In two articles written by Mark Guarino, “Behind Chicago’s High-Crime Summer: Persistent Street Gang Violence” and “In Chicago, Can Community Involvement Combat Gang Violence” he adds how Chicagoans are severely alarmed by the series of murders there are due to gang violence, including the death of an innocent eight year old girl who was caught between a heated gang war while playing outside (Behind Chicago 1), while adding how a gunmen approached a car and started shooting and killed a 20 ...
Throughout the whole book, Don’t Shoot: One Man, a Street Fellowship, and The End of Violence in Inner-City America David M. Kennedy uses multiple steps to implement Project Ceasefire and tries to make it work. If the chief of police approached me and asked how to implement Project Ceasefire I would follow these steps: selecting a target behavior analyzing the dynamics of local gun violence, assembling an interagency working group of largely line-level criminal justice and other agencies that were going to be involved, communicate with the targeted group, developing a strategy designed to have an impact on youth homicide and create a strong deterrent to violence, following up with the strategy and see if the behavior was controlled.
...ter the communities they are placed in. The military should begin to follow suit. Yes, fixing gang problems is not so easy. But over time the obstacles that would be in the way could be overcome. Maybe there just needs to be more incentive to resolve the issue since the current things happening do not appear to be forcing the hand of the government or the military. As a result the lives of innocents can be wrongfully endangered.
Youth gangs are defined as any group of people who engage in socially disruptive or criminal behaviour, usually within a defined territory, and operate by creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in a community. Federally in Canada “…Bill C-95… says a gang must include five or more people involved in criminal activity.” Over the last ten or so years, youth gangs have become more violent and dangerous than ever before. They have more access to sophisticated knives and guns and use these weapons to gain power and fear. The problem of youth gangs is especially apparent in low-income neighbourhoods in Canadian cities. Low income neighbourhoods in the Greater Toronto Area are a...
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Joint Warfare Armed with numerous studies, and intensive public hearings, Congress mandated far-reaching changes in DOD organization and responsibilities under the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This landmark legislation significantly expanded the authority and responsibility of the chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Included in this expanded authority and responsibility was the requirement for the chairman to develop a doctrine for the joint employment of armed forces. As operations Urgent Fury, Just Cause, and Desert Storm have vividly demonstrated, the realities of armed conflict in today's world make the integration of individual service capabilities a matter of success or failure, life or death. Furthermore, the operation Desert One demonstrated the need for a strengthened Joint Warfare Doctrine and the consequent change in Joint Warfare Employment.
Many communities have been the victim of many gangs moving into their once safe neighborhood, causing major downfalls and preventing the citizens from living their daily lives in peace. Guarino elaborates how Chicago still outpaces other big American cities in crime rates due to gang violence (Guarino1). There’s a lot of given reasons to why there is much gang violence in the city but the solutions are not as prominent. In the article, “Chicago Tactics Put Major Dent in Killing Trend” written by Monica Davey, she goes on to explain, “that more than 500 people were killed in Chicago in one year, many of them young men shot to death amid the hundreds of gangs that flourish in Chicago neighborhoods” (Davey). Davey continues on to say that in recent months, police officers have been working overtime and dispatched to 20 small zones that are considered the most dangerous in Chicago (Davey). Due to the high activity of police activity, Chicago homicides and gang violence have declined.
These issues are of utmost importance, gang membership does not only present an issue on an individual level, but on a societal level as well. Gangs are well-known for their proclivity for violence, even to those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Youth gang crime is no longer limited to big cities; these problems have now spread beyond those boundaries into suburbs, small cities, and even rural areas (Spergel & Grossman, 1997). These organizations put us all at risk, and are a threat to public safety. Furthermore, these groups put our youth at risk and threaten to destroy their
... member or has served in prison so they could change their lives by turning away from crime, they also get training to detect problems before they happen like shootings. This solution would help my community's problem because cure violence has reduced shootings and killings by -41% to -73%. Also they saw a 100% homicide reduction in 5 out of 8 communities. This is some big improvements that are going on other communities. One of the communities was Englewood and it saw a -40% reduction is shooting density. If this solution is not implemented in my community nothing will change you will still see crime and deaths. There are already 110 homicides so far in the New City community. That's a lot and you will keep seeing these numbers if they don't put a plan into action to stop the gangs. They need to start to interact with the people who are high risk to joining a gang.