Flawed Laws Help Stalkers Victimize Women

Discussion in 'In the News' started by jgullock, Apr 10, 2007.

  1. jgullock

    jgullock Active Member

    1,654
    2
    38
    Saw this on Fox News this morning:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264896,00.html


    Flawed Laws Help Stalkers Victimize Women
    Monday, April 09, 2007

    By John Lott and Sonya Jones

    What do you do when the police can’t protect you?

    Police may be the single most important factor for reducing crime, but there is something the police themselves understand: They almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.

    Expecting people to trust the police to protect them and to behave passively is a recipe for disaster.

    The last couple of weeks have seen a couple prominent murders where restraining orders did women little good. Numerous news organizations, such as ABC News, have run headlines asking "How Do You Stop a Stalker From Killing You?"

    Unfortunately, despite acknowledging that "many women find themselves on their own," the media are drawing the wrong lessons. To simply advise that women "Get the hell away from him" often doesn't go anywhere near far enough.

    With her tragic murder on Monday on the campus of the University of Washington, Rebecca Griego learned this the hard way. Twice she had filed for restraining orders against her abusive and physically violent former boyfriend, Jonathan Ghulam-Nabi Rowan, but the police didn’t know where he lived and could never serve him.

    It wasn’t like they didn’t try, for in January they couldn’t even locate Rowan for an outstanding warrant for a drunk driving conviction.

    Rowan made Rebecca’s life hell. In police reports as well as her request for a restraining order, she described Rowan as a "suicidal alcoholic†who had “punched,†“slammed†and “thrown†her to the ground.

    To no avail, she moved a couple of times and changed her cell phone number. Nevertheless, on March 7 and 14, Rowan called her at work, threatening both her and her dog. He then called and threatened Rebecca’s older sister.

    But restraining orders often aren't worth the paper on which they're written, even when they are served.

    For a stalker intent on killing his victim or committing suicide after the attack, the penalty for violating a restraining order is irrelevant. With Seattle police's response time of seven minutes for the highest-priority emergency calls, the police simply can't be there to protect you even with a restraining order. Seven minutes can seem like an eternity.

    With such rampant failures in the system, there is one piece of advice that could have saved Rebecca’s life: Practice self-defense and a get a gun.

    Indeed, the University of Washington goes in the opposite direction and tries to protect people by declaring the campus a “gun-free zone,†with the school’s code of conduct banning the “possession or use of firearms ... except for authorized university purposes.â€

    Gun-free zones may be well-intentioned, but good intentions are not enough. It is an understandable desire to ban guns; after all, if you ban guns from an area, people can’t get shot, right? But time after time when these public shootings occur, they disproportionately take place in gun-free zones.

    It is the law-abiding good citizens who would only use a gun for protection who obey these bans. Violating a gun-free zone at a place such as a public university may mean expulsion or firing and arrest, real penalties for law-abiding citizens. But for someone intent on killing others, adding on these penalties for violating a gun-free zone means little to someone who, if still alive, faces life in prison.

    Unfortunately, instead of gun-free zones ensuring safety for victims, ensuring that the victims are unarmed only makes things safer for attackers.

    One of us conducted research with Bill Landes at the University of Chicago that examined all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999. We found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

    To the extent that attacks still occurred, they overwhelmingly happened in the special places within right-to-carry states where concealed handguns were banned. The University of Washington is a good example of this.

    There is no evidence that there are any more accidental gun deaths that occur from right-to-carry laws. Permit holders also tend to be extremely law-abiding.

    Ironically, earlier this year University of Washington President Mark Emmert began consideration of making the school’s ban somehow apply to students living off campus as well. Students are sitting ducks on campus, but the change would make them vulnerable off campus as well.

    Not only did the gun-free zones fail here, but it is extremely unlikely that Rowan could even legally own a gun. As a non-resident alien, Rowan needed an alien firearms license to even own a gun, something that rarely is granted.

    There is an even simpler point to make. It is the physically weakest, women and the elderly, who benefit the most from having a gun to protect themselves. The U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey has shown for decades that resistance with a gun is by far the safest course of action when one confronts a criminal.

    Good intentions don't necessarily make good rules. What counts is whether the rules ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many rules primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

    * John Lott is the author of the forthcoming book, "Freedomnomics" and the Dean's visiting Professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton.

    Sonya Jones is a lawyer.
     
  2. pro2am

    pro2am New Member

    1,861
    0
    0
    Nicely done.

    although I think I would have worded the above as, "...when one is confronted by a criminal"

    Neither here nor there. It was a good article, hopefully many others will follow the logic also.

    DEFENSE!
     

  3. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    Keeping violent, repeat offenders in jail would help as well. Hell, build more jails and keep people in them longer, if not forever. I'll help pay for it. And while they are in there, take away their TV's, cigarettes, weights and any creature comfort you can think of. Nurture criminals who make mistakes and help them back into society... those that screw up and do it again... hammer them!!! No freaking probation or parole for repeat offenders.
     
  4. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    We wouldn't need any more jails if we just gave up on the stupid War on Drugs. People shouldn't be in prison for smoking weed or meth or anything else they're stupid enough to put in their own bodies. Let them go and we'll have plenty of room for the violent and truly dangerous thugs.

    I agrees wit foshizzle. The really bad ones should be locked up until they're too old and feeble to be a danger to the rest of us. BUT, we give early release to some of those punks because some drugs laws carry mandatory long sentences that frequently don't allow for parole. What madness!

    Until politicians stop trying to be tougher and tougher on drug violations, it will never end.

    Lock up the bad guys, send the druggies to rehab! It's cheaper in the long run to do both.
     
  5. maddog

    maddog New Member

    220
    0
    0
    I tend to agree with locking up the hard core offenders, take away all of their conviences (all they need is a cot and a toilet), let them grow their own food, even bring back chain gangs for road work to clean up the highways.
     
  6. Sharky

    Sharky New Member

    4,981
    0
    0
    jail or prison is just "spring Training" for these people. They get thrown in, knowing they will get parolled. The work out, learn more tricks of the trade and then come back out in my opinion more equipped than when they got thrown in there!

    Absolutely, take everything away! Make it so when they get out, sunlight hurts, they can barely lift their own body weight, and look like hell!
     
  7. maddog

    maddog New Member

    220
    0
    0
    never said anything about letting them out, just stack them up. They could hot rack (3 different people sharing the same cot sleeping in rotations)
     
  8. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,559
    0
    36
    I have never understood why hot bunking and tents are acceptable for our men in uniform, but not okay for prisoners. I have seen photographs of Soldiers and Marines in Iraq that wish they had tents. Instead they were just sleeping outside in the rain.
    :rant:
     
  9. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    We sorta got off topic a bit. The original topic is a good one. My wife and both daughters are really, really anti-gun. They respect and admire Sarah Brady. I don't understand them......obviously. So, I sent the three of them the first post. Haven't heard from them...!




    OK, back to prisons...

    You guys keep forgetting something.

    The federal court system.

    Prisons are required to provide certain items to prisioners.

    Items such as no overcrowding, cable TV, law libraries, commissaries, substance abuse programs, religious programs, visitors, access to attorneys, access to the courts, mail, medical care, dental care, vision care, mental health care, nutritious meals including kosher, halah and vegetarian meals, medications, privacy (!!!) and probably a lot of other things some of these people never could afford if they were out of jail and on their own...!

    This is a direct quote:

    "Court decisions have established the right of a prisoner to own some personal items, such as cigarettes, stationery, a watch, cosmetics, or snack foods."

    Want to read more? Go here:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/prisoners-rights

    Even though I generally support the ACLU, I don't always agree with them. Here's their website on prisoners rights:

    http://www.aclu.org/prison/index.html

    I have a tough time saying that. "Prisioner rights" tends to stick in my throat just like "welfare rights" does...

    Anyway, the fact remains, prisoners are guaranteed certain creature comforts by the federal courts. We can lock them up, but we can't punish them! At least, not in any other way besides simply locking their asses up. That's punishment enough for most people but is almost a "finishing school" for some young thugs and career criminals...

    Sad.
     
  10. dbaker

    dbaker New Member

    41
    0
    0
    I have never understood why hot bunking and tents are acceptable for our men in uniform, but not okay for prisoners. I have seen photographs of Soldiers and Marines in Iraq that wish they had tents. Instead they were just sleeping outside in the rain.
    :rant:[/quote]

    The food's probably better in prison too! J/k :lol:
     
  11. glockgirl

    glockgirl New Member

    997
    0
    0
    feed them MRE's or C-rations... No tv, no gym, put them to work!
    if they have income earning assests the government should get the income...
     
  12. maddog

    maddog New Member

    220
    0
    0
    IMHO a prisoners rights are ...... non existant. They gave up the rights when they killed someone or robbed another of thier rights.
     
  13. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Even prisoners who are in for say....growing cannabis plants for their own personal consumption? That is a felony.
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
  15. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    Hey MP:

    Even we "little people" all know cops stick together and cover for each other. Something about a "blue code" or some such. Why would anyone be surprised that happened? It's a wonder the wife/victim wasn't arrested!

    Just another "little person" here...
     
  16. lsu_nonleg

    lsu_nonleg New Member

    824
    0
    0
    Jails:
    Yep, because nobody is ever in prison by way of malicious prosecution, just like no one convicted of a sex crime could be a 17 year old that had consensual relations with a 15 year old.

    Gotta watch the advocation of extreme authoritarianism; we see the flip side of it with the BATFE harassing FFLs over a statistically insignificant number of typos. Or the conviction of someone without a GFL who left a gun on the passenger seat, where it was visible to one cop and not the other, and ends up.... Guilty.

    On Topic:
    The state (ie, police, courts, etc) has no obligation to protect individuals. Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services .

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle ... ction.html

    Answer: Get the women folk armed; teach them police are largely there to take a report to document the incident, and are not likely to actually stop a violent activity in progress. (Obviously, it takes 45 seconds to rob a liquor store, it's not like they can prevent it.)