week 3 replies

1

5

561 discussion replies 200 words each.

561 d1 Reply to becker

      Through the use of a variety of crisis intervention techniques, Officer Williams is able to take control of the incident, de-escalate it, and find a workable resolution that satisfies all involved (James, 2024). Upon arrival, he properly identified the behavior as that of someone in a mental health crisis and not with obvious criminal intent. Officer Williams was able to shift his approach to managing a crisis instead of investigating a crime. He spoke with Jason, the man experiencing the crisis, and opened a line of dialogue to let him know that he was there to help, not just to take him to jail. Officer Williams used open-ended questions that allowed Jason the ability to talk, instead of just answering yes or no questions. This time to talk allowed Jason to settle himself. Officer Williams maintained a safe but respectful distance from Jason for both of their safety. This showed Jason that Office Williams respected him and understood boundaries.  

          By using these crisis intervention techniques, Officer Williams brought a peaceful resolution to an otherwise volatile situation. He was able to de-escalate the situation, gain Jason’s trust, disarm him, and assist him by getting him the needed medical and mental health services instead of arresting him. This benefits everyone involved: Jason, the Community, Officer Williams, and his agency (James, 2024). By utilizing these crisis intervention skills, Officer Williams provided service to a citizen that shines a positive light on the agency and their efforts. With his agency utilizing a crisis intervention team model, it shows the community that their law enforcement is there to serve them, not just enforce the set laws. By getting Jason to the needed services, he is not another person in jail that the agency and community now have to take care of.  

          Had Officer Williams not had crisis intervention training and known how and when to deploy it, this incident would have ended much differently. He would have most likely responded with some type of use of force, be it lethal, less-than-lethal, or non-lethal. Of course, non-lethal, such as a conducted energy weapon like a Taser, or a less-than-lethal rubber bullet or ‘bean bag’ gun, or uses pepper-spray or chemical irritant. This would have forced Officer Williams to take much more drastic action and most likely take Jason into custody for a crime. Not only would this not help Jason, but it would take Officer Williams off the street for several hours, add another case to the court system, and shine a less-than-shining light upon the agency for having used force on someone suffering a mental illness episode.

          One additional strategy that an agency could use is the co-responder method. A co-responder is a mental health professional who responds with a law enforcement officer to a mental health incident call (Bille, 2023). The co-responder is able to assist the officer in several ways. They have a less threatening appearance that may help to begin de-escalation. Their training and skill set can help bring the immediate crisis to a close. Once the subject is calmed down, the co-responder can then help find appropriate services and may even have pre-arranged contacts that can provide service sooner (Marcus & Stergiopoulos, 2022). 

References

Bille, E. (2023, September 5). Co-Response Models in Policing. LEB.FBI.org.  https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/co-response-models-in-policing

James, R. (2024). Crisis Intervention Strategies (9th ed.). Cengage Learning US.  https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9798214125787

Marcus, N., & Stergiopoulos, V. (2022). Re‐examining mental health crisis intervention: A rapid review comparing outcomes across police, co‐responder and non‐police        models. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30(5), 1665–1679.  https://doi-org.proxy.ccis.edu/10.1111/hsc.13731 

561 d1 Reply to eric

Officer Williams effectively applied Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) principles by prioritizing de-escalation, communication, and safety rather than enforcement to gain immediate control. Consistent with James (2024), Officer Williams recognized the signs of a person in a mental health crisis, agitation, disorientation, and incoherent speech, and with his training in (CIT) principles, he adjusted his speech and tone accordingly. Instead of escalating with verbal commands and using force, he maintained a calm presence, maintained a comfortable distance to ensure safety, used open-ended questions to gain rapport, and created a non-threatening environment. Using this approach allowed Officer Williams to assess Jason’s condition and identify that he suffered from schizophrenia and was off his medication as the contributing factors.

There were a few contributing strategies that contributed to this scenario’s positive outcome. First, active listening and empathy helped reduce Jason’s anxiety and noncompliance. Second, maintaining distance minimized a perceived threat from Jason, which is important in crisis situations. Third, Office Williams used problem-solving communication, promoting compliance without the sense of coercion. Finally, connecting Jason to mental health and wellness professionals aligns with CIT goals and supports diversion from arrest to treatment (Compton et al., 2014).

The principles of CIT benefit law enforcement and individuals in crisis. As officers encounter situations, their training helps them reduce the likelihood of escalation and the potential for use-of-force incidents, liability for the department, or injuries to individuals in need, and improve decision-making under extreme pressure. For individuals like Jason, it promotes safety, ensures dignity, and enables them to receive appropriate care, while addressing the issue without criminalization. Scenarios such as this provide evidence that CIT training improves outcomes in law enforcement and mental health-related encounters.

Without these principled skills, situations could escalate quickly. When an officer’s primary mindset is enforcement, their judgment is focused on control and on making the arrest, potentially involving force or injury. This approach and the lack of communication and crisis recognition could have increased Jason’s fear, advancing his mental state and noncompliance.

Some additional strategies could enhance mental health outcomes, such as co-responder models, pairing officers with certified clinicians, dispatch training and screening models, making officers aware of the situation before arrival, and active mobile crisis units. Continuous officer training focused on mental health and wellness, trauma, and de-escalation skills, also creating a partnership with community mental health providers, would strengthen positive responses to mental health calls.

 

References

 

Compton, M. T., Bahora, M., Watson, A. C., & Oliva, J. R. (2014). A comprehensive review of extant research on Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42(1), 47–55.

James, R. (2024). Crisis intervention strategies (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

524 discussion replies 100 words each

524 d1 reply shequita

This week’s reading assignment Chapter 8, “Faulty Sex Offender Policies,” illustrated the author’s positions, projecting the implementation of broken policies in the realms of sex offender registration, community notification, and civil commitment laws. One agrees with the positions of the authors in the realm of public safety. Persons registered as “sex offender” are often met with great hostility which may in turn make them become social outcasts. Their living is not only faced with harassment and constant surveillance with GPS monitoring, but discrimination in all areas of survival such as housing and employment. The state of Florida's required law for all sex offenders and/or predators to obtain a driver’s license with said offenses to include the state of Alabama’s requirement of a “sex offender” to have a special classification bestowed upon their license, will draw more negative attention than good. A sex offender’s identification is used for more than just a direct identifier for law enforcement purposes. 

A “sex offender” having to produce their identification for all applicable needs is giving the public access to one’s photo, address, and stated criminal actions. The same aspects apply to community notification as a labeled sex offender’s personal information is broadcasted to neighborhoods, employers, and/or strangers. One also agrees the civil commitment of sexually violent predators is a broken policy as it was not tested before being implemented, deeming it ineffective as person is labeled dangerous and mentally ill without a testable means to claim the dangerous accusations true. This in turn placed perfectly sane and non-dangerous persons in unjust solitary with no due process. 

One disagrees with the positions of the authors in the realm of media and public fear. Yes, media has its influences and risks of perceptions and crises may cause the public stress or anxiety, however, without the broadcasts of “sex offenders,” predators, or criminals given by the media throughout neighborhoods and communities incidents that have happened could have been  avoided or could have at least made the public become alert, which could have heighten public safety as a whole. This includes restrictions and measures of non-livable areas for “sex offenders” as some do not register and are living in restricted areas unknowing to the community and law enforcement agencies causing more harm than good. 

In one’s state of Georgia, community notification on registered offenders “is available to the public via the Georgia sex offender registry. It is maintained by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), often with public alerts regarding high-risk individuals. In the realm of Civil Commitment, the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board (SORRB) classifies offenders by level. This is based on risk factors with “sexually dangerous predators” receiving the highest observation. Supervision realms consist of no contact with victims, monitoring all online activities, and prohibition of alcohol and drug use” (GBI, 2016). One believes that public awareness is effective as photos and addresses are updated consistently, to include alerts with each new registry; keeping the community informed and reducing recidivism. One believes improvement is needed in the 72-hour registration period as all “sex offenders” so not comply or must be sought out by local law enforcement. One thinks “sex offenders” should not have the option of timing they should be registered and in all state systems after being justly convicted.  

Regarding the authors discussed challenges in states creating a timely sex offender registry which is “Section 2250 of the Title 18, United States Code, makes it a federal offense for sex offenders required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), to knowing fail to register or update a registration as required. State convicted sex offenders may also be prosecuted under this statute if the sex offender knowingly fails to register or update a registration as required, and engages in interstate travel, foreign travel, or enters leaves, or resides on an Indian reservation. A sex offender who fails to properly register may face fines and up to 10 years in prison” (DOJ, 2023). If the states do not comply with this stature they forfeit 10% funding to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which is “the “Wiretap Act” prohibiting the unauthorized, non consensual interception communications of “wire, oral, or electric communications” by government agencies as well private parties” (BJA, 2026).

One agrees with the fact of funding as a punisher of noncompliance, but not to the “Wiretap Act.” If the state does not comply to promptly implement a “sex offender” registry the funding could be used to implement more programs needed for rehabilitation or for families that have been victimized by a “sex offender” by providing the funding for help with traumas, but “Wiretap Act” not the biggest concern when involving the public and victims as “sex offender” is a major factor of a state’s public safety.  

 

                                                          References 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (2026) Title of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Wiretap Act). Office of Justice Programs.  https://bja.ojp.gov  

Georgia Bureau of Investigation (2016) 42-1-15 State Sexual Offender Registry. Georgia.  https://gbi.georgia.gov  

U.S. Department of Justice (2023) Citizen’s Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Sex Offender Registration. 18 U.S.C. 2250-Failure to Register. Criminal Division.  https://justice.gov  

524 d1 reply laycee

The author’s point of view for the current sex offender laws is something I can agree with. The current sex offender laws are based on a “one size fits all” concept. There isn’t any uniqueness to majority of the sex offender laws because there is research that shows recidivism levels being lower. If we are going to be honest, most sexual offenses are not reported by the victim for multiple reasons. If the victim is a child, there is a higher chance that they may not remember their assailant. Calkins (2014) discussed how the effectiveness of current sex offender legislation are questioned on the basis consistently due to seeing if rules and regulations can reduce sex crimes. Another reason could be the victim would feel like somebody would believe their story. With low reporting rates and higher recidivism rates, this could lead the community to agree their family would always be protected. This would provide a false sense of hope, protection, and safety.

Within the state of Missouri, individuals who have been convicted of the following sexual offenses are required to register within the county they will reside in: rape, child molestation, and sexual exploitation of a minor. Sex offenders are required to register within three days after being released from custody. Depending on the tier will determine how the offender will have to register. Offenders would be required to verify their information every 90 days, depending on what type of tier they would be considered for the state of Missouri.

Missouri requires all sexually violent predators to be committed to a facility to complete treatment. With this law in place, the main purpose of it is to grant a sentence without the possibility of release. For this to be reconsidered, the state of Missouri would have to prove that through confinement and treatment, the law is considered as non-punishable.

With the assistance of federal conditioned funding towards all states that are required to pass sex offender registries, there could be an accountability perspective. Each state that would receive this funding would have to make sure all data received from the sex offender registry are up to date and accessible for all personnel. The only downfall would be the possibility of states losing the funding if they don’t remain compliant with the rules and regulations for receiving this funding. Winter (2017) discussed how public safety is the primary motivation for new legislative initiative regarding sex offenders.

Calkins, C., Jeglic, E., Beattey, R. A., Jr., Zeidman, S., & Perillo, A. D. (2014). Sexual violence legislation: A review of case law and empirical research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(4), 443–462.  https://doi-org.proxy.ccis.edu/10.1037/law0000027

Peter N. Borden * (Winter, 2017). COMMENT/NOTE: The Peering Predator: Drone Technology Leaves Children Unprotected from Registered Sex Offenders. Campbell Law Review, 39, 167.  https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.ccis.edu/api/document?collection=analytical-materials&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a5N29-P1J0-00CV-K239-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=ZS3JZ251851.

less

524 d2 reply doug

After looking through the various links I was actually surprised by how much money these special interest groups spend to grease the wheels of their objectives.  I was especially surprised to see how much my very own Ted Cruz hauls in!  I mean what do they do with all that cash?  Just kidding, I have a pretty good idea where it goes.   I also looked at the communist party out of pure morbid curiosity.  I found most of the things they advocate for will actually get them killed in a real communist country, so I’m not sure if I should take them seriously or not.  However someone is buying it because they are raising some serious cash too. 

But without looking, can anyone guess which group I’d like to talk about?  You guessed it, the NRA.  In my lifetime I don’t think any organization has done more to guide policy in Austin and our nation's capitol.  I’m not talking about the amount of money they have raised, but the consequential effects they have had on the protections of the Second Amendment.  In an online article, The Trace, “The NRA has for decades invested in harsh sentencing rhetoric,” The article goes on to relate, Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and an expert on gun rights says, “The GOP shift on criminal justice is a recent phenomenon. It may be that the NRA hasn’t accurately gauged its depth or breadth.” 

This tracks as I have in the past observed close ties between the Republican far right and the gun advocate group. Sure they are all about legitimate gun ownership and firearms safety, but they also create a certain sphere of influence when talking about ideals such as, “Stand Your Ground” Laws. They have sought to influence and sternly advocate for the continued policies of mandatory maximum sentencing for gun related crimes as well.  According to an online article published by the NRA in 2026, They state, “By pushing for stricter enforcement and harsher penalties for the misuse of firearms, the NRA has sought to address public safety concerns while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners”. 

In conclusion the question as to whether or not they have enhanced or hindered the creation of, “Effective, responsive criminal justice programs.” That might largely lie in one’s own perspective.  If you’re content with the status quo, I would consider them mildly effective.  If you want to see change to the way we maintain laws relating to gun violence, and seek to create a policy shift, you might consider them a hindrance.  If forced off the fence on the subject I would have to say that what they are advocating is not progressive, or positive change in the way of sentencing, but rather continuing to support the extreme penalties for crimes involving guns. 

~Doug

Yablon, A. (2016). The Trace: The NRA is Talking Tough on Crime Again, By Partisan Prison Sentencing Reform Be Damned.  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_3zvCb_66npo65BJ1NLuszcLrVVNYtPgE3cRwdu4DYE/edit?tab=t.0. 

Online Article. (2026). NRA: NRA Statement on Gun Control Package.  https://home.nra.org/statements/nra-statement-on-gun-control-package/#:~:text=We%20are%20deeply%20disappointed%20in,the%20NRA%20strongly%20opposed%20it. 

Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.  https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376. 

524 d2 reply fredrick

What role does this special interest group play in Congressional criminal justice policy making

The role of interest groups determine policy in all three levels whether its local or state level. The policy states, "these groups also employ legislative advocates also known as lobbyists who draft and push legislation while maintaining close relationships with lawmakers and government officials" (Shelden, 2011).  Randall also stated, "the membership consist of private corporation executives, criminal justice officials and more than one third of state lawmakers in the country most of whom are republicans or conservative democrats"(Randall, 2011). Special interest groups effect policy by drafting the legislation in Criminal justice policy. On the vote smart page you can see on the different collaborations that they have. This is to help influence policy when that time arises. 

How has the group sought to influence policy making at the legislative level? Earlier Randall brought up lobbyist and what they do exactly is draft bills by mainlining close relationships with lawmakers and government officials. They increase their pull by gaining entry into multiple organizations that has the same common goals. 

Has the existence of this group and the role it plays created an enhancement or a hindrance to the creation of effective, responsive criminal justice programs? Randall brought up an example of one of the programs which is public safety and elections. He stated, " this group is dedicated to developing model policies that reduce crime and violence in our cities and neighborhoods while focusing on developing policies to ensure integrity and efficiency in our elections and within our system government" (Randall, 2011). In my opinion I think it could be an effective way to influence policy. However, this could be a hindrance if you get people in key positions, but they have bad intentions. If they get this expert options but don't deliver the message this could hurt how special interest groups are received. 

Cited Material 

Shelden, R. (2011, January 10). Research Brief. Center on Juvenile AND Criminal Justice. Retrieved March 25, 2026, from  https://www.google.com/search?q=What+role+does+this+special+interest+group+play+in+Congressional+criminal+justice+policy+making&sca_esv=b398b8538d712a04&source=hp&ei=ggvEaeeGEMz-ptQPy_u84AU&iflsig=AFdpzrgAAAAAacQZkr-NmUNCp1VyWDglSBxX5LpJt4Fh&ved=0ahUKEwjnz_HEuruTAxVMv4kEHcs9D1wQ4dUDCBY&uact=5&oq=What+role+does+this+special+interest+group+play+in+Congressional+criminal+justice+policy+making&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Il9XaGF0IHJvbGUgZG9lcyB0aGlzIHNwZWNpYWwgaW50ZXJlc3QgZ3JvdXAgcGxheSBpbiBDb25ncmVzc2lvbmFsIGNyaW1pbmFsIGp1c3RpY2UgcG9saWN5IG1ha2luZzILEAAYgAQYkQIYigUyCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFMgsQABiABBixAxiDATIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBMggQABiABBixAzIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCBAAGIAEGLEDMggQABiABBixAzIFEAAYgARI0_ACUJWNAVjT5gJwBHgAkAEAmAF2oAH2A6oBAzMuMrgBA8gBAPgBAfgBApgCCaAC2wSoAgrCAhMQABiABBhDGLQCGOcGGIoFGOoCwgIKEAAYAxjqAhiPAcICEBAAGIAEGLEDGEMYgwEYigXCAhMQLhiABBixAxjRAxhDGMcBGIoFwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYxwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICFhAuGIAEGLEDGNEDGEMYgwEYxwEYigXCAgoQABiABBhDGIoFwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAhEQLhiABBixAxjHARiOBRivAZgDEPEFm9TUpqCuBySSBwM2LjOgB_EssgcDMi4zuAerBMIHBTItNC41yAdXgAgA&sclient=gws-wiz