We are a nation focused on eradicating sex offenders from the lives of our children. They are in and near our schools, at the local parks, living next door, and even in some of our churches.

The Phoenix schools, as well as their teachers, administrators and parents, want to protect their children from sexual attacks and abductions. Together with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office, the Phoenix schools have devised a pilot project to apprehend sex offenders and alleged abductors before they can do harm.

The plan of the Phoenix schools is simple.  Two cameras are now located outside the school office of the Royal Palm Middle School, scanning the faces of people who enter. Each camera uses face-scanning technology, designed to compare the scanned faces with the state and national databases of registered sex offenders, missing children, and alleged abductors. If a match is found, a police officer is dispatched to the Phoenix school.

Law enforcement and the Phoenix schools are hopeful that the project succeeds, knowing that anything that protects the children is worth any cost and inconvenience.

Civil libertarians, however, are concerned with privacy more than protecting the children from attack or abduction. They are vocally opposing the Phoenix schools project, citing the potential issues of privacy violations.

Others say the technology is unproven and not reliable. According to Chengjun Liu, professor and researcher of facial recognition technology at New Jersey Institute of Technology, the technology is very promising but currently is not foolproof. Many variables, such as lighting, shadows and facial expression, can affect its accuracy.

Ken Kaplan, engineering director at Hummingbird’s Phoenix location and who provided the equipment and software for the Phoenix schools pilot, disagrees.  He is confident that facial scanning technology can be used to accurately compare scanned faces with mug shots and snapshots stored in the databases. He believes that false positives are rare situations.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for instituting chain gangs and issuing pink underwear to county inmates, believes that if it only catches one sex offender at the Phoenix school, then it is worth it.  Protecting children from attack and abduction – or worse – takes priority.

If the pilot project is successful, both law enforcement and Phoenix schools educators hope to expand it. The Phoenix schools want the technology in all of their schools. According to Arizona Schools Superintendent Tom Horne, the Phoenix schools may very well get their wish.  If the project succeeds, he plans to seek funding for cameras for all schools within the state.

This information on Phoenix schools is brought to you by http://www.schoolsk-12.com

Patricia Hawke is a staff writer for Schools K-12, providing free, in-depth reports on all U.S. public and private K-12 schools. Patricia has a nose for research and writes stimulating news and views on school issues. For more on Phoenix schools visit [http://www.schoolsk-12.com/Arizona/Phoenix/index.html]Phoenix Schools

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Patricia_Hawke http://EzineArticles.com/?New-Pilot-Program-to-Nab-Sex-Offenders-Being-Tested-in-Phoenix-Schools&id=220933

It’s hard for me to think of a job that’s more frustrating these days than that of a
local cop.

Day in and day out, local police officers and sheriff’s deputies lay their lives on the
line in an effort to bring criminals to justice.  However, shortly after they bring these
punks to the jailhouse, the lawbreakers are out on the streets again, free to commit
even more heinous crimes.  It seems that many of today’s lawbreakers are nothing
more than career criminals.  You and I, as taxpayers, foot the bill for their care and
feeding much of the time.  And for that investment, what do we get?  More crime,
more frustration, more burned-out cops.

But Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona believes he has a better way.  And
for his crime-fighting efforts, he’s re-elected time and time again.

What is the secret of Sheriff Joe’s success?  To put it bluntly, he treats criminals like
criminals.  The convicts in his charge lose the precious privileges they might have at
other correctional institutions.

For instance, they have no right to smoke.  They have no right to read pornographic
magazines.  They have no write to bulk themselves up with state-of-the-art
weightlifting equipment.  And they have no right to see “R” movies in the cellblocks.

Oh—and they have to pay for their meals—just like the rest of us do.  Shocking?
Maybe.  But I say it’s a good shock to the system, one that just might reduce the
repeat offender rate.

The sheriff’s inmates are required to work on county and city projects, providing
local governments with no-cost labor.  Interestingly enough, Sheriff Joe even started
chain gangs for women so he would not be sued for discrimination.

Initially, he eliminated cable TV from jail, until he discovered there was a federal
court order to require it.  When he hooked up the cable again, he only permitted two
stations:  Disney and the Weather Channel.   Cruel and unusual punishment?
Hardly.  That’s the type of punishment you’d give your seventeen-year-old for
refusing to mow the lawn.

The sheriff even went so far as to purchase the Newt Gingrich lecture series, which
he plays in the jails.  When a reporter asked him if he had a lecture series by a
Democrat, he noted that a Democratic lecture series might explain why many of the
inmates where in jail in the first place.

When inmates complained after the sheriff took away their coffee (which has no
nutritional value), he responded, “This isn’t the Ritz-Carlton.  If you don’t like it,
don’t come back.”

Convicts are human beings and they deserve to be treated with dignity.  However,
the fact of the matter is they have broken the law and many of them have little
respect for law enforcement officers, their own grandmothers, and even themselves.
Criminals do not need coddling.  They need discipline.  If their parents or caregivers
failed to supply it when they were young, it’s up to people like Sheriff Joe to supply
it in the best way he knows how.

Liberals may cringe at the sheriff’s tent city jails, but the accommodations are
certainly no worse than what our brave fighting men and women face in Iraq and
other hot spots around the world.  Sheriff Joe issued his own fighting words when
he said, “It’s 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they
have to wear full battle gear, but they didn’t commit any crimes, so shut your
damned mouths!”

We need more Sheriff Joes—jail keepers who are not afraid to run their jails like,
well, jails.  To make a criminal understand the severity of his actions…to make him
see that only misery awaits him if he violates the law again…is actually the
responsible, loving thing to do.

True, it’s tough love—but sometimes that’s the only kind of love that works.

Nathan Tabor is a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North
Carolina. He has a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in public
policy. He is a contributing editor at http://www.theconservativevoice.com and his 60-
second commentaries are heard on over 250 stations daily. Visit http://www.aconservativemoment.com to hear them. You can contact him at
[mailto:Nathan@nathantabor.com]Nathan@nathantabor.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nathan_Tabor http://EzineArticles.com/?Making-Sure-Crime-Doesnt-Pay&id=191319

When someone is accused of committing a criminal act, they are most commonly arrested and taken to jail. Before they can be released from jail while pending trial, someone must bail them out, or pay a bail bonds agency to step in and take over the process. The following paragraphs will answer some frequently asked questions about the process, thus helping the reader to better understand how it work.

What are Bail Bonds?

It is basically a type of bond used in order to achieve the release of someone who is incarcerated, and has been ordered to give bail in order to be released pending trial. Once it have been posted on behalf of the suspect, the accused is then released from police custody pending the final outcome of the trial. If the person does not return to court for his/her trial, the ordered amount is then forfeited, as well as any other collateral filed with the court as part of the bail bonds.

Who Issues Bail Bonds?

It is most commonly issued by licensed bail bondsmen. These agencies specialize in the field of issuing bail bonds, and seeing that their clients do show up in court when their trial begins, they must be licensed by the state.

How Much Do Bail Bonds Agencies Charge for Their Services?

The average cost of hiring them to get someone out of jail until closure of their criminal case is right around 10 percent of the actual bond cost. This does not include actual expenses agencies, which include any necessary and reasonable expense incurred with the association of the transaction. Agencies do not determine the cost of the bonds. That is up to the court to determine.

What Do Bail Bonds Agencies Do For Their Clients?

They will commonly provide their clients with:

receipts for any monies spent
copies of all signed documentation
information regarding the status of the bond, as well as status on any changes
prompt return of any and all collateral upon exoneration of the bond

If you have been arrested, or if you are ever arrested, the first thing you should do is consult an attorney before making any sort of arrangements. Although sometimes hiring an agency is your only feasible option, your attorney may be able to help you explore possible alternatives.

Bounty Hunters Locate Bail “Jumpers”

When one hires to help obtain successful release from police custody, they are essentially promising they will return to court for trial. If they do not show up for trial, their bond is forfeited, thus causing many companies to enlist the help of bounty hunters, to locate and bring the subjects back for trial, before the actual time of forfeiture. The following paragraphs will discuss the general rights of bounty hunters when their clients skip bail.

Skipping bail is a term commonly used to describe the act of accused individuals failing to make mandatory court appearances. When accused people “skip bail”, the court will issue a bench warrant for their arrest, and schedule a court appearance on the matter. If the accused misses this court appearance, the amount is forfeited. This has inspired many agencies to work in conjunction with bounty hunters to locate the accused that have skipped bail, and bring them back before it have to be forfeited.

Locating and bringing jumpers back to court is often called “tracking a skip”. This process of preventing bail bonds forfeiture is legal, and can often lead to bringing criminals to justice. If the accused is returned to court prior to the forfeiture date, the amount and all collateral may be returned. However, agencies will take their agreed to portion of the amount first.

Bounty hunters, also referred to as bail enforcers, are often permitted by law to locate, apprehend, and return people accused of a crime to court. In some states, the bondsman must be present for the apprehension, and sometimes they are the one required to make the arrest. In these type of arrests, there is usually no legal requirements to obtain search warrants or extradition documents. However, the bounty hunter must always be certain he has the right person. If not, both the bondsman and the bounty hunter can be held liable for false arrest charges.

State laws vary on the obligations and rights of bounty hunters in tracking a skip. Some states allow them, all means necessary in order to apprehend and arrest those who have skipped out, but other states have stricter laws. For additional information on your state laws regarding this, please contact a bail bondsman in your area.

Copyright 2006 – Ivar Rudi, Ivar suggests you find great market for less by shopping online today. For more information and resources check out: [http://www.bail-bonds-guide.com/]www.bail-bonds-guide.com/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ivar_Rudi http://EzineArticles.com/?All-About-Bail-Bonds&id=310780

Millions of people in the world currently rot in jails or prisons. People think of jails and prisons as an essential part of society, but do we really need them? Do prisons really protect people from violence and victimization, or do prisons just make matters worse? Let’s look at the different types of criminals that governments throw in prison.

Non-violent non-victimizers – Governments have a tendency to criminalize behaviors that do not hurt anyone. The governments create victimless crimes by creating authoritarian laws. When people break these laws, they have not hurt anyone in any major way. These laws can include any laws outlawing victimless behaviors, such as drug possession, prostitution, peacefully practicing a religion, and so on and so forth. For example, the United States currently has over 1 million people behind bars for victimless crimes, which only limits freedom and does not protect others. Instead of putting these non-violent people in jail or prison, we can just let them go and legalize all victimless behaviors. It makes more sense to let people have freedom than to waste resources enforcing authoritarian laws.

Incidental Criminals – Some people may commit an illegal act of violence or victimization due to external conditions. We can refer to these people as incidental criminals. These ‘incidental criminals’ do not have any more of a tendency to hurt others than the average person. For example, consider someone who has to steal to feed his family one day. Almost anyone would do that, so it does not mean we need to throw the person in jail or prison. If we can change the conditions that cause a normal person to a commit a crime, then we can do that rather than brutally lock a person in a cell. We have no need to throw a person in jail or prison if they pose no more danger than the average person but committed a one-time crime due to external circumstances.

Mentally Sick People – Finally, we have sick people. These people have some sort of mental defect that makes them a danger to other people. If we do not restrain these people, they will victimize other people. So we must restrain them. But why put them in jail or prison? They need treatment, and prison will not cure them; it will just torture them. If we put them in jail or prison, then we can never let them out because jail or prison will not cure them. If we put them into a treatment facility, then we may successfully treat or cure some of them, at which point we can safely release those ones back into society. We will protect more people by putting mentally sick people into treatment centers (including insane asylums), then by throwing them in jail or prison. These people need professional care in a medical establishment, not the punishment of prison.

I think most people feel like me in that I would prefer to protect people and to do it in as least brutal a way as possible. I have no interest in using the force of government to pointlessly get vengeance or inflict punishment using prisons. Thus, I see no need for prisons. We can release people who have no psychological defect that makes them dangerous, and we can put the ones with psychological defects in treatment. Let’s base our policies on sympathy, understanding, and a desire to protect people. Let’s not base policy on a wasteful indulgence in state-sanctioned vengeance.

Scott Hughes manages the [http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/]Philosophy Forums, which contain a [http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=5 ]Philosophy of Politics Forum. You can use the forums to discuss topics such as this and more.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Scott_Hughes http://EzineArticles.com/?Do-We-Really-Need-Prisons?&id=1018297