Crime rate drop in Little Rock: Cecilla Pond-Mayo, a reporter for KARK 4 news, reports in this story that in Little Rock, AR, with the exception of rape, violent crime has gone down significantly. Violent crimes include: murder, assualt, battery and robbery.  Even theft, a non-violent crime decreased.  

Although the violent crime rate has decreased nationwide, Little Rock's violent crime rate has dropped even more. The overall violent crime rate dropped 21%.  

There are a few reasons for the violent crime drop.  Officers have been utilizing more undercover tactics.  Law enforcement agents park and wait in their unmarked vehicles to prevent auto thefts.  Also, officers dress in plain clothes and observe crime ridden areas, spotting potential crimes before they happen.  

But, arguably most importantly, Little Rock hired 20 more police officers to join the force.  This has reduced crime because hiring more officers reduces the burden on the force as a whole and allows for greater more policing.    

Solid public policy initiatives by lawmakers are crucial to decreasing violent crime.  Although many times there is no fool proof policy to reduce crime, putting more police on the streets seems to be an all around  reliable strategy.  And as an added benefit, citizens feel more secure knowing that they are more protected than before.

Investigator access to cell phone info:  Topeka Capitol Journal reporter, Tim Carpenter, reports in this story that Kansas legislators have enacted a law, the Kelsey Smith Act,  requiring cell phone companies to hand over cell phone information to investigators if the information pertains to a crime.

The law was enacted in response to the abduction and murder of teenager Kelsey Smith.  By using 'ping' information, law enforcement agents could find out where she had been after her disappearance.  The information possessed by the cell phone company was not given to the police until 4 days later. 

The law requires that cell phone companies furnish the information "in a timely manner".  The goal of the law is to find the missing person as soon as possible, instead of making the families wait for days to find out the location of the missing person. 

Legislators in other states are considering enacting similar laws. 

This law is will not only reduce the distressing waiting period for families, but also could prevent the death of victims by locating them sooner.

Surveillance cameras: News Tribune journalist, Steve Maynard reports in this story, that in Federal Way, Washington, law enforcement agents are permitted to monitor the city using cameras.  The 27 surveillance cameras placed in the city are intended to record crimes, give prosecutors indisputable evidence of such crimes, and prevent future crimes.  

The advanced digital technology allows law enforcement officers and trained volunteers to view the images straight from their laptops.          

The cameras are only placed in public areas, mostly downtown, near businesses, banks and the local shopping mall.  

The ACLU has objected to the use of  surveillance cameras.  ACLU communications director, Doug Honig said: "Programs that have police cameras recording what people do on sidewalks move us closer to a surveillance society," The organization also pointed to studies in New York and Hong Kong that concluded the cameras were not effective.  Finally, the ACLU claims the cameras will not be effective because the same crimes will take place but in areas without cameras.  

The quality of the camera images certainly needs improvement.  Glen Proctor was charged with second degree murder based on, to an extent, the camera's fuzzy images. Only after forensic scientists more closely examined the images was Proctor proven innocent.  
 
Only time will tell whether the cameras ultimately be effective by providing prosecutors with unquestionable evidence of the crime or whether the crimes will continue in areas away from the camera lens. Either way, new crime fighting strategies, especially ones incorporating digital technology should be tested and eventually a effective crime preventative method will emerge.

Getting tougher on juveniles: Even while Congress considers softening penalties for juvenile thugs, Jennifer Sullivan, a journalist for the Seattle Times, reports in this story, that in Washington, penalties are becoming increasingly more severe for juveniles.

Prosecutors in the state are looking for ways to make the penalties more severe.  They have discussed new proposals for the legislature and have been using their own "legal discretion" by transferring minors who commit violent crimes from juvenile to felony court.  

So far 19 cases have been transferred to date.  Of these 19 cases, 16 of the defendants have been charged with violent crimes.  Most of the charges involve guns and gang related offences. Prosecutor Dan Satterberg explains why he has chosen to transfer these cases: "By the time a juvenile has picked up a gun and is firing shots at other people, they are no longer juveniles in either my view or in the eyes of the law."

Satterberg is also specifically looking to crack down on gun related crimes.  He stated: "Right now, a juvenile who is convicted of possessing a handgun, which is illegal, is eligible for no detention time at all," he said. "We're saying if we catch them with a gun and they haven't used it yet, it's no big deal." His approach is aimed at deterring future crimes and protecting future victims.  

This is good news for victims' rights advocates, victims and potential victims.  Violent tendencies that erupt during adolescence are not easily fixed, even with psychotherapy.  Some argue that it is not useful to simply put criminals in prison.  However, this approach will accomplish one of the main goals of the criminal justice system: protecting potential victims.