Suchergebnisse

Many observers have recognized and decried the disproportionate impact on young minority males of harsh sentencing policies for drug dealing. Nationwide, African-Americans and Hispanics constituted 78.2 percent of incarcerated drug offenders in 1996. Their incarceration rates for drug offenses were respectively 17 and 8 times greater than non-Hispanic white rates. The disproportionalities for drug offenses were over twice as wide as the disproportionalities for other types of offenses.1 Scholars have noted the lack of hard data about neighborhood dynamics of arrest and incarceration for drug dealing, but they have nonetheless tended to explain the disproportionate impact on minorities with reference to neighborhood phenomena. This paper uses a mapping of the pre-incarceration residences of drug-dealers incarcerated in state prison in Massachusetts to systematically explore neighborhood and certain other explanations for disproportionate impact.

Some have tried to explain corruption in the Third World by reference to anachronistic traditions and to the special pressures on officials in developing countries. In this article, I argue that, at least in the case of Nigeria, the roots of corruption go deeper, to a materialism and a political fragmentation that are the products of a moment in development. After a schematic review of the relevant literature, I examine the causes of Nigerian corruption, and conclude with the suggestion that the future of good government depends on an expansion of the private economy.

Intro -- Contents -- Introduction: Drug Policy with a New Focus -- 1. Toward a Balanced Drug-Prevention Strategy: A Conceptual Map -- 2. Drug Users and Drug Dealers -- 3. Is Addiction a Chronic, Relapsing Disease? -- 4. Is Drug Addiction a Brain Disease? -- 5. If Addiction Is Involuntary, How Can Punishment Help? -- 6. Controlling Drug Use and Crime with Testing, Sanctions, and Treatment -- 7. Limits on the Role of Testing and Sanctions -- 8. How Should Low-Level Drug Dealers Be Punished? -- 9. Reflections on Drug Policy and Social Policy -- Postscript -- Contributors.

This study reviewed the role of a law providing enhanced penalties for drug dealing within 1,000 feet of a school in 443 drug-dealing cases in three cities in Massachusetts: Fall River, New Bedford, and Springfield. We reviewed district attorneys' case files and mapped drug-dealing incidents using a combination of geographic information systems and location visits with a hand-held geographic positioning system. School zones – the areas within 1,000 feet of schools – cover 29% of the areas of the study cities and 56% of the high-poverty areas within the cities. Although less than 1% of the drug-dealing cases involved sales to minors, approximately 80% of the cases occurred within school zones, apparently because of the density of schools in high-poverty/high-drug-dealing areas. Most school zone cases are "broken down" – defendants plead to lesser charges and receive less than the two-year mandatory minimum sentence for dealing in a school zone. Decisions to "break down" charges are not influenced by proximity to schools or time of day. Most drug dealers commit their offenses close to home, and most dealers charged with dealing in school zones reside in school zones. Overlapping school zone boundaries are chaotic and confusing in the inner city areas studied. The school zone statute fails to push drug dealing away from schools: the density of dealing within 250 feet of schools is similar to the density of dealing at greater distances.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Introduction: Drug Policy with a New Focus -- 1 Toward a Balanced Drug-Prevention Strategy: A Conceptual Map -- 2 Drug Users and Drug Dealers -- 3 Is Addiction a Chronic, Relapsing Disease? -- 4 Is Drug Addiction a Brain Disease? -- 5 If Addiction Is Involuntary, How Can Punishment Help? -- 6 Controlling Drug Use and Crime with Testing, Sanctions, and Treatment -- 7 Limits on the Role of Testing and Sanctions -- 8 How Should Low-Level Drug Dealers Be Punished? -- 9 Reflections on Drug Policy and Social Policy -- Postscript -- Contributors