Blog Post 3: The Code of Silence

     Every community throughout America is affected by some level of crime however low-income communities experience significantly more crime that goes unreported to police then more affluent communities. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey, in 2009 only about 49% of violent crimes and about 40% of non-violent crimes were reported to police (BJS, 2010). In low-income communities this lack of crime reporting is due to a strong cultural “code of silence,” that considers reporting a crime or aiding police culturally wrong. Community residents also have a strong fear of being victimized if they report a crime. According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Friedman (2009), in almost every case it is a challenge to get witnesses to cooperate and overcoming witnesses’ fears  are the most difficult part of prosecuting a case and reducing crime (Smith, 2008).

     In low-income communities the “code of silence,” is deeply ingrained in the socialization process. Children are often taught to never cooperate with the police at a very young age by peers, criminals, and family members (Smith, 2008). From my own personal experience of growing up in the low-income community of Richmond, California I remember being constantly reminded by older peers and my older brothers that it was wrong to “snitch,” or report someone to the authorities and just mind your own business. According to Volkan Tapalli a Georgia State University criminal justice professor, within low-income communities “the ethics are that you’re supposed to mind your own business and not get into the affairs of others (Cook, 2010).” This strong ethical belief is reinforced within the community by fear and intimidation.

     Many community members remain loyal to the code of silence because they fear becoming a victim. In the low-income communities of Philadelphia 13 witnesses have been killed over the last decade because of their willingness to  testify (Phillips, McCoy, & Purcell, 2009). In one case a 16 year old witness was shot in the head five times while waiting for the bus just days before he was scheduled to testify in an arson case (Phillips et al., 2009). Acts like this send a clear message to community members that breaking the “code of silence,” will result in injury or death. Criminal justice officials in Philadelphia say that frightened witnesses have become a common theme in every case and it is normal for witnesses to recant their statements or not appear in court because of this fear and intimidation making it extremely hard to successfully prosecute a case (Phillips et al., 2009). The prevalence of this witness intimidation is evident in the fact that between 2006 and 2008 over 1,000 people have been arrested in Philadelphia for witness intimidation (Phillips et al., 2009). This is a common trend throughout low-income communities across the United States however, many communities are attempting to reduce this intimidation and protect witnesses.

     A growing trend in many communities is the adoption of state run witness protection programs and increase penalties for witness intimidation in the hope of breaking down the “code of silence.” For example, Maryland’s legislature made witness intimidation a felony that carries a possible sentence of 20 years in prison and Washington D.C. has created a witness protection program which now provides varying levels of protection to 400-500 witnesses per year (Smith, 2008). However, programs like these are still in their beginning stages and it is unclear how they will affect the deeply rooted “code of silence,” and sense of fear associated with reporting a witnessed crime.  In order to reduce the crime within low-income communities the “code of silence,” needs to be broken and the culture within these communities need to encourage reporting crimes in order to make their neighborhood a better place.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010). National Crime Victimization Survey: Criminal Victimization 2009. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf

Cook, R. (2010). ‘Witnesses’ Won’t Admit to Seeing Fatal Shooting. The Atlanta Journal – Constitution. Retrieved October 6, 2010, from ProQuest database (2133644641).

Phillips, N., McCoy, C., & Purcell, D. (2009). Witnesses Fear Reprisals, and Cases Crumble: Intimidation on the Streets is Changing the Way Trials are Run. “People are Frightened to Death,” the D.A. Says. McClatchy – Tribune Business News. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from ProQuest database (1920681941).

Smith, B. (2008). Keeping a ‘Snitch’ from Being Scratched. ABA Journal, 94(12),20. Retrieved October 6, 2010, from ProQuest database (1608809021).

Blog Post 2: Education in Low-Income Communities

Blog Post 2: Education in Low-Income Communities

One of the largest problems contributing to crime within low-income communities is the lack of quality education. The Alliance for Excellent Education estimated that the graduating class of 2008 had 600,000 students’ dropout (AEE, 2010). A majority of these dropouts came from one of the 16,122 schools considered to be high-poverty in 2008 based on a majority of the student body qualifying for discounted lunch programs (IES, 2010).  There are a number of personal reasons that cause students to dropout such as family responsibilities and peer pressure. However Catherine Cornbleth, a professor specializing in education states, low-income schools are a major contributor to this problem because they lack needed educational resources and have lower expectations for students (Dougherty, 2010). 

 The most important educational resource that low-income schools lack is quality and experienced teachers. School administrators state that teachers are the second most important factor in determining how successful students are, accounting for 25 percent of a student’s achievement (AEE, 2010). Exposing a student to effective teaching for three consecutive years increases the student’s academic performance by at least 50 percent (AEE, 2010). However, this is unlikely to occur in low-income communities where students only have a 15 percent chance of having an effective and motivating teacher for one year (AEE, 2010).

A reason for the lack of quality educators in low-income communities is that more experienced teachers choose to work at nicer suburban schools forcing new teachers to work in low-income schools. According to Martin Haberman, developer of the National Teacher Corps, many new teachers are shocked by the environment these students live in and are not prepared to handle the challenges associated with teaching low-income children which cause the teachers to believe these children are not teachable (Downey, 2010). This leads to high teacher turnover rates within low-income school and does not provide a stable learning environment for students. The turnover rate for teachers in low-income schools in 2004 was 21percent, which is much higher than the national average of 14 percent (IES, 2010).

To reduce this high turnover rate in low-income school districts need to place more emphasis on screening potential teachers to determine if they will be able to handle the challenges associated with teaching impoverished youth. According to Haberman, the most important tool to determine if a teacher will be effective is “an interview process that drills deep into whether teacher candidates believe that students can learn despite lives marred by poverty, violence, gangs, drugs, or fractured families (Downey, 2010).” There is also an importance on recruiting new teachers that have grew up in similar communities because they understand the difficulties the children face and they are able to build stronger relationships with the children (Downey, 2010).

Another problem that results in high dropout rates within low-income schools is  a poor learning environment. Many low-income schools are in a state of disrepair with broken windows, broken desks, and outdated teaching materials. Students also have to worry about crime while in school because over 38 percent of low-income schools reported violent incidences such as a rape, physical attack, or robbery in 2008 (IES, 2010). This unwelcoming environment  does not provide any incentives for students to stay in school and cannot contend with the temptations of the streets and a life of crime and drugs, which  tempt kids with the illusion of money and prosperity.

            Improving the quality of education within low-income communities and reducing the dropout rates by hiring quality teachers and improving the learning environment is critical in reducing the high crime problems in these communities. Jeremiah Byrd, a high school dropout states, “A person who drops out of school locks themselves out of a lot of opportunities (Miller, 2010).” This lack of opportunities for dropouts is a precursor to a life of crime because dropouts feel crime is the only way to survive (Miller, 2010). According to President Obama, “Not long ago you could drop out of high school and reasonably expect to find a blue-collar job that would pay the bills and help support your family.  That's not the case anymore (Miller, S., 2010).”

References

Alliance for Excellent Education (2010). Policy Brief: Call for Action: Transforming Teaching and Learning to Prepare High School Students for College and Careers. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from http://www.all4ed.org/files/TransformingTeachingAndLearning.pdf

Dougherty, N. (2010). Poverty Key in Debate on Schools. Rochester Business Journal,26(2), 1. Retrieved September 27, 2010, from ProQuest database (2019499061).

Downey, M. (2010). Are They Unteachable?. The Atlanta Journal – Constitution. Retrieved September 27, 2010, from ProQuest database (1747155771).

Miller, L. (2010). Quitting School has Consequences on Crime. Philadelphia Tribune,126(33), 1A. September 22, 2010, from ProQuest database (2006638701).

Miller, S. (2010). Obama Tackles Dropout Rates, Targets ‘Chronically Troubled’ Schools. ABC News. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-tackles-high-dropout-rates-targets-chronically-troubled-schools-.html

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Special Analysis 2010 High-Poverty Public Schools. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/section3a.asp