The Militarization of Policing in America

Some thoughts and sources for further study about the militarization of law enforcement in America. I used to study trends in law enforcement in Criminal Justice and Sociology classes, and for professional development in my prior career. I remember reading a couple of articles in LE professional journals over a decade ago that addressed the changing attitudes in the "younger generation" of police, and how that was causing a divide between LE and the citizenry. Some of the older LE professionals were worried about the changes in equipment, tactics, training, and attitudes they were seeing in the newer additions to the profession.

That problem has continued to grow over the past decade, and now has a name - the militarization of policing. Here's some of what a quick trip to google turned up...  

What is the militarization of law enforcement? Here it is, in a nutshell:

The police have become more militarized, more soldier-like in the last generation or two," explains journalist and author Radley Balko. "It applies to the weapons they are using, the uniforms they wear...to the tactics they use, to what I think is the most pervasive problem which is the mindset that police officers take to the job."

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/08/0...itarization-of  

Why should military and LE be different?

To cast the roles of the two too closely, those in and out of law enforcement say, is to mistake the mission of each. Soldiers, after all, go to war to destroy, and kill the enemy. The police, who are supposed to maintain the peace, “are the citizens, and the citizens are the police,” according to Chief Walter A. McNeil of Quincy, Fla., the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, citing the words of Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern-day policing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/su...anted=all&_r=0  

Why can't LE have tacticool toys for use against the real badass villains? Because they end up using those toys on... everyone.

In some cases, the rationale for using military weapons and tactics on domestic soil seems obvious: look no further, proponents argue, than the recent hunt for the Tsarnaev brothers after the Boston Marathon bombings. But what’s remarkable is how routine these tactics have become as a means of pursuing nonviolent suspects and low-level investigations, particularly in the war on drugs.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...am-nation.html

 I see why citizens might be concerned, but why should this be a concern to a law enforcement professional?

Although the botched raid of my home and killing of our dogs, Payton and Chase, have received considerable attention in the media, it is important to underscore that this bill is about much more than an isolated, high-profile mistake. It is about a growing and troubling trend where law enforcement agencies are using SWAT teams to perform ordinary police work. Prince George’s County police acknowledges deploying SWAT teams between 400 and 700 a year— that’s twice a day—and other counties in the state have said that they also deploy their special tactical units hundreds of times a year. The hearings on these bills have brought to light numerous botched and ill-advised raids in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s counties that also have had devastating effects on the lives of innocent people and undermined faith in law enforcement. . . .

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/mili...next%E2%80%9D/  

What would you recommend that LE do, if not using SWAT teams for everything? Well, you old timers may remember this concept called "Community Policing", where the LEOs and the citizenry worked together to deter crime...

Community policing, actual officers walking the streets and interacting with civilians, instead of patrolling in cars or rolling-in armored response vehicles, has by far proven the most effective form of law enforcement – budgetary and statistically. The militarization of local police is inherently opposite of strategies that have shown the best results.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bradlock...-local-police/  

What should be the top priorities of any LE professional? What's wrong with "Officer Safety" being the primary focus of police work?

All of these policies have infused too many police agencies with a culture of militarism. Neill Franklin is a former narcotics cop in Maryland, who also oversaw training at the state's police academies in the early 2000s. “I think there are two critical components to policing that cops today have forgotten," he says. "Number one, you’ve signed on to a dangerous job. That means that you’ve agreed to a certain amount of risk. You don’t get to start stepping on others’ rights to minimize that risk you agreed to take on. And number two, your first priority is not to protect yourself, it’s to protect those you’ve sworn to protect. But I don’t know how you get police officers today to value those principles again. The ‘us and everybody else’ sentiment is strong today. It’s very, very difficult to change a culture.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3749272.html

The lie of "compromise" in anti-gun legislation.

It seems that whenever the anti-constitutionalist element wants to create more "gun control", they claim that their plan is a "compromise". What that really boils down to, in most cases, is "We'll let some people keep some guns". The "compromise" is always one sided, and provides no value for law abiding gun owners.

A real compromise would give something back to American citizens in return for taking away our rights. As it is, “gun control” does not reduce crime or improve public safety, and only serves to deny freedoms to the people.

How about this for a compromise – have background checks – “free”, “instant” background checks with no record of why the check is being made – and used for gun transfers, voting, employment eligibility verification, government benefits verification, etc. (because we actually do need to ensure that only law abiding citizens get access to these things). In return for us allowing such intrusions into our freedoms, we would – at a minimum – like to have the ability to buy or sell firearms in any state, and use CCW or other permits from any state in any state. This means that a Utah carry license would be valid in California, New York, Chicago, or Washington D.C..

We would also like for guns and ammunition to be exempt from sales taxes – as such taxes are an infringement in our ability to exercise our rights. To sweeten the deal, maybe we could also have a tax credit for citizens who attend firearms safety training and who can show that they practice firing their firearms a number of times each year.

When we are offered things like this in return for giving up our 2nd, and 4th amendment rights on the background check issue, then – and only then – is there any real compromise on the table.

The perceived divide between LEOs and non LEO gun owners.

There is a perception of a divide between LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers - aka "cops") and non LEO gun owners. This divide is a predictable consequence of gun laws that treat off duty LEOs differently than other citizens. It creates a disconnect between two groups in the gun owning community, breeds suspicion, and exempts LEOs from some of the laws that they enforce.

Once the initial disconnect is there, and people no longer see LEOs as standing beside the people, people give more credence to other reports they hear about LE behaving badly, and the divide grows wider. As the divide grows wider, LEOs tend to care less about what the citizens - now disdainfully referred to as "civilians" - think. And the vicious cycle continues...

The same disconnect between civilian gun owners and military gun owners doesn't exist, because military exemptions tend to only apply while on duty, and using government supplied weapons. There are also exemptions that allow non-Californians who are temporarily stationed here to keep possession of their legal and safe firearms - but these servicemembers are not Californians, don't vote here, and will most likely take those weapons with them when they leave California - so they aren't as important to the state.

While there may be good reasons for off duty and retired LEOs to have national carry rights (which are provided federally under LEOSA), there is no reasonable explanation for why they should be allowed to purchase firearms that the state deems "unsafe" (this actually creates an "officer safety" problem, if the CA handgun roster is legitimate, because now LEOs are using guns that the state claims "endanger" the LEOs), no reason that they should be allowed to personally own firearms that the state bans as "assault weapons" (this again creates "officer safety" issues, as it makes LEOs better targets for burglars who want to acquire "desirable" firearms), and no reason that they should need to have "high capacity" magazine when they are off duty (or even when they are on duty - since the party line is that LEOs are better trained with firearms, so shouldn't need more rounds to subdue a threat).

The distrust and bad feeling that we have seen developing between gun owners and civilian LEOs is working out exactly as planned by the anti-gunners. Civilian LEOs have been thrown enough crumbs that they don't speak out en masse against new gun control laws, and don't get their unions involved in fighting against gun control measures. Before antigunners included such LE exemptions in their bills, many rank and file LEOs would go on record as opposing gun control legislation, because they didn't want to have the right of the people - including themselves -to self defense infringed.

To some people, it seems that by granting LEOs privileges, the antigunners have muted LEO opposition to taking away the rights of the rest of the people.

The test of what is “reasonable”

The test of what is “reasonable” One of the tactics of those who oppose our right to keep and bear arms is to label any of their proposals as “reasonable” or “common sense” – leaving our positions to be seen as “unreasonable” and “nonsensical”. The fact is that since most Americans are in the middle ground on 2A issues, they can easily be influenced by the language used. We can’t allow our enemies to control the definitions used, or we will lose the debate before it even begins. The real test of what is “reasonable” in terms of gun control is to look at how the same policy would be viewed if applied to another aspect of life. If what seems “reasonable” for one matter that is less important to someone seems “unreasonable” for a matter that is important to them, we must expose that hypocrisy. Unfortunately, exposing the hypocrisy of the “Antis” may also cause some of us to have to examine ourselves for hypocritical thinking. ID and background checks that are reasonable for purchasing a gun are also reasonable for voting. In both cases, there is a compelling public interest in knowing that the person exercising the right is how they say they are, and is not a “prohibited person” (i.e. felon, insane, or non-citizen), so both require the same safeguards – right? If a waiting period is “reasonable” to allow a person to “cool off” and avoid “rushing into” a major decision, then it is “Common sense” for the same waiting period that applies to gun purchases should also be applied to abortion. These are both decisions where a life may end up being at stake, so both should require the same amount of deliberation – right? If a\it is “reasonable” for a citizen to be required to show ID and provide a fingerprint to buy ammunition, and must do so with a licensed seller in a face to face transaction, then it is “common sense” for the same policy needs to be applied to the sale of gasoline. After all, many traffic accidents and fatalities are caused by “prohibited persons” who are illegally operating motor vehicles without a valid license, registration, or insurance. This also applies to limits on amount of purchase in a given period. If a citizen can be restarted to purchasing only x cases of ammunition a week, then it stands to reason that a limit of x gallons of gasoline would also be appropriate. These are both instances where regulating of the supply will arguably impact public safety, so both should be treated the same (although gun ownership is an enumerated right, while car ownership comes under general property rights) – right? Personally, the ID verification and making sure that they are not a felon, insane person, or non-citizen makes sense before I want to allow anyone to vote or buy a gun. In the other two, I have to say that they are not reasonable to me – but are equivalently unreasonable. I think it’s clear that the main purpose of waiting periods is simply to create an inconvenience, and thus limit the citizen’s ability to exercise their right (gun ownership is an enumerated right, while abortion is often described as being a “right” although it is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution). Likewise the ammunition or gasoline regulation/check is simply an attempt to create an inconvenience and raise costs, so as to limit a citizen’s ability to exercise their right (the enumerated right to keep and bear arms, and the right to freedom of movement/travel).

A “Reasonable Compromise” on Universal Background Checks for Firearms Purchases

A “Reasonable Compromise” on Universal Background Checks for Firearms Purchases There has been a lot of hype in the media about the supposed “Gun show loophole” in the national background check system, and calls for universal background checks for firearms purchases. It seems that this could be accomplished in such a way that both pro 2nd Amendment rights groups and pro gun-control groups would be satisfied. Let’s start by taking a look at what each side reasonably wants to have, and then seeing if this can be accomplished in a manner that meets the needs of both sides. Both sides want to prevent “prohibited people” from acquiring firearms and other dangerous weapons. The pro 2nd Amendment rights side wants citizens to enjoy their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. They want to be able to transfer (sell, purchase, gift, or receive) firearms in a manner that does not include undue cots (taxes/fees), delays, or inconvenience. It is also reasonable that the pro 2nd Amendment side would want something in return for giving the government so much control over a basic, civil right. The gun-control side claims that universal background checks will make everyone safer, and want them to be performed in all firearms transactions, in order to advance the public good. Current laws vary from state to state, and some include waiting periods, and purchase limits, as well as background checks. I would say that, as a minimum, in order to meet the reasonable expectations of both sides, the universal background check must meet the following criteria: 1 Must be free to the buyer, and funded by the public – since it is a public safety measure. While a small fee (no more than the state Driver’s License or ID card fee) could be charged to first time buyers, no other fees or special taxes would apply. 2 Must be conducted by/through a reputable organization, such as the FBI, ATF, or other federal organization. For the purpose of transfers between two private parties, any local law enforcement office would be required to conduct the check at no cost to the private parties. Such checks would be conducted at any time during normal department business hours. If appointments are not available within three business days (or one calendar week), the LEA would be forced to pay a fine of $5,000 each to the buyer and seller for the inconvenience and for violating their civil rights. 3 Gun shops (FFLs) would be able to access the database through computer, telephone, or other communications system in order to process background checks on customers. 4 Database checks for flags must include felonies, disqualifying misdemeanors (i.e. domestic violence), citizenship status, and psychiatric information that would disqualify a potential purchaser. Since all of these conditions other than misdemeanor offenses disallow voting, the same database could also be used to screen potential voters to eliminate voter fraud, creating a cost savings to the taxpayer, since it would serve two purposes. 5 Buyers would have to provide federal or state photo ID, SSN, and biometric data (example: thumbprint or fingerprints) in order to prove identity. This would be the same requirement for positive voter ID, and could use the same system – again creating cost savings for the taxpayer. 6 Must be “instant” meaning that the entire process should take 30 minutes or less to verify or flag a potential purchaser. While a “waiting period” may be appropriate for the first purchase, allowing investigators to follow up on any irregularities or questions arising from the instant check, no state would be allowed to force such a period on people who had already successfully purchased one firearm using the system. 7 All persons flagged would be investigated by the appropriate agency, and any prohibited persons who were illegally attempting to purchase a firearm would be prosecuted. 8 Gun show organizers would be required to set up a background check booth with communications linked to the appropriate database to facilitate transfers at the show. Cost for such equipment, personnel, and connection fees would be tax deductible as a business expense. 9 Once entered into the system, returning purchasers would be able to purchase firearms via face to face transactions in any US state or territory. Such persons could be issued a special license (with photo ID and biometric information) at a cost not to exceed that of a state DL, or SSN and biometric information in the database could be used. 10 Any federal, state, or local registration requirements would be at no cost to the buyer or seller, since registration is claimed to be a “public safety” measure, it will be paid for using public funds. 11 If a firearms owner enters into the class of prohibited person, they shall be allowed to arrange the sale of their firearms (except any used in the commission of violent crimes) through a third party. 12 Names, addresses, and other personal information about gun buyers or those who register firearms would be protected under all available privacy laws, and would not be released to the public (or press) without a compelling public interest. Agencies doing so would be fined $50,000 per person whose privacy was invaded, and the officials responsible would be tried for willful violation of civil rights, with a felony term of 2 years per violation. 13 Reciprocity: Any firearm or accessory (i.e. magazine, stock, etc.) that has been legally purchased in one US state or territory may legally be possessed in any other US state or territory.

What is a "reasonable" policy to prevent prohibited people from buying ammunition?

The parallel to the idea of registration of ammunition sales is to ask how you would feel about similar restrictions being placed on the sale of gasoline. Many traffic accidents and fatalities are caused by unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured drivers ("prohibited persons"). The DMV has not been able to keep those people off the road. Since over 30,000 Americans die in traffic accidents each year, surely the "public safety" need there is much greater than the public safety need to restrict ammunition sales. That means: Only purchase from licensed dealers. ID and documents (DL, registration, insurance papers) shown to employee at time of purchase. Fingerprint at time of purchase. Limits on the amount of gasoline you can buy in a given period (2 gallons a day? 10 gallons a week?). Is this reasonable? If it is not reasonable to enact such rules to prevent prohibited persons from purchasing gasoline, then why would they be reasonable for ammunition?

Guns and Abortion - Political Parallels

The issues of gun control and abortion demand to be viewed side by side. Such a comparison dramatically shows the hypocrisy that exists. While most liberals will support the policy of abortion on demand, any type, for anyone, at any time, for any reason, without any screening, no waiting periods, no background checks, no notifications - with absolutely no restrictions, most (not all, but most) do not even come close to taking a similar stance regarding gun ownership. Gun rights advocates do not even take such an extreme position on gun rights. Most are okay with restrictions on some types of arms (i.e. sawed off shotguns, machine guns, anti-tank missiles, surface to air missiles, nuclear weapons, grenades, bombs, actual assault rifles, etc.). Most are also okay with restrictions on some types of people (minors, mentally unfit, felons, etc.), Many gun owners are willing to accept reasonable delays (in our modern world, "instant check" taking a minute or two is the established standard in most places, for most uses - but an occasional delay of a few days because the system is down would be acceptable to most gun rights supporters). Gun rights supporters don't think people should be able to purchase guns with the expressed intention of murdering people or committing crimes. Gun rights supporters are in favor of effective screening (that "instant check" that gun rights supporters got passed in Congress, for example) to keep minors, the mentally unstable, and felons from gaining arms. Gun rights supporters do agree with abortion rights supporters that "waiting periods" that are often proposed in order to supposedly "give people time to cool off and not make decisions in the heat of the moment" are actually more about making it costly and inconvenient to exercise your rights, and thus serve as an effective deterrent to doing so. Gun rights activists support reasonable background checks for gun purchasing. Many (but not all) gun rights activists are okay with notifying the authorities when firearms change hands (registration). Most gun rights advocates willingly accept reasonable restrictions on what types of arms they can own, and who can own them (as described previously). On the other side, any conservative that suggest that other alternatives to abortion may be a better choice, or suggest that women be educated about options other than abortion, or that minors have to have parental consent, or that husbands have the right to take part in the decision, or that women be shown what their fetus/baby looks like before terminating it, or other wise seeks to allow women to make an INFORMED CHOICE is branded as "anti-abortion". Many (possibly even most, but certainly not all) of these conservatives actually are pro-choice - but they seek some common sense and reasonable policies to prevent pregnant women from making choices they may later regret. These same conservatives generally fall into line with the beliefs of gun rights supporters, as described above. In a political climate where "Choose Life" is classified as an "anti-abortion"/"Anti-Choice" statement, then anyone who advocates choosing not to be armed - even if they don;t advocate disarming others - could equally well be classified as "Anti_Gun"/"Anti-2nd Amendment""Anti-Freedom"/"Anti-Choice", etc.

How should we address violent crime?

In a recent online discussion, I was asked... “What possible solution(s) do you think would work to help solve the problems of gun violence in America? ” First of all, I want to solve the problem of violent crime, not just "violent crime with guns", so my answers will be directed towards things I think will help in both of those areas. 1) Based on the historical results of “shall issue” programs, we have seen that more people with carry permits would reduce violent crime. 2) Based on the repeated failures of “gun free zones” as a safety measure, allowing carry permit holders to carry in more places would also reduce violent crime. 3) There have been several high profile failures of the background check system to deny firearms sales to people whose mental health issues should have prevented them from being able to purchase firearms (VA Tech shooter, Ft Hood shooter, and the Aurora CO shooter come to mind). There is an obvious problem when mental health privacy laws prevent people from being entered into the ATF/FBI database as they are supposed to be. This needs to be addressed. 4) All states should be required to recognize carry permits issued in other states, just as they are required to recognize things like marriage licenses from other states. 5) Since many anti-gun laws are passed in moments of hysteria, when people caught up in irrational fear are being flim-flammed by media and politicians who lie and misrepresent facts about firearms, to capitalize on the ignorance of the American people, firearms safety training (such as programs developed by the world’s leading firearms safety training organization, the NRA) should be required in all public and publicly funded K-12 schools, colleges, and universities, just as drug and sex education are already required. 6) Cleaning up and consolidating the over 20,000 different, often conflicting firearms laws in this country would make it possible for citizens and law enforcement to focus on “male in se” types of firearms crimes, rather than worrying about “male prohibita” infractions. There should be no more than 10 federal laws regulating firearms and/or ammunition, and each state or territory should not be allowed more than an additional 10;

NY Journal News prints names and addresses of registered gun owners.

Recently, a so called newspaper decided to publish the names and addresses of registered gun owners. They did this without any regard to the consequences of their actions - telling criminals that certain houses contain firearms to steal creates a public safety hazard (even worse if some of the addresses printed are from gun owners who have moved and been replaced by unarmed families - so they are placing families in danger who don't even own a gun), as does printing the names and addresses of registered gun owners who also happen to be prison guards (and yes, inmates have already been using this information to threaten guards and their families). This is repugnant, and legitimate news agencies should refuse to do business with anyone associated with this hack rag. 1) This is the equivalent of publishing the names and addresses of every woman who has gotten an abortion. Or publishing the names and addresses of every voter who cast a ballot for a certain candidate. Or the names and addresses of every Muslim or Buddhist in the area. 2) There was no "compelling public interest" to print the names of all the gun owners. If one of the gun owners was a suspect in a high interest crime that involved guns, or was a leading advocate of gun banning, there would be a compelling public interest in publicizing the gun ownership of that particular individual, but there is no valid news value in releasing all of the names and addresses. 3) Since I'm sure that these people were compelled to register their firearms, and then the government irresponsibly released their personal information, which they most likely believed they enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy for, and then the hack rag chose to irresponsibly publish that information, the gun owners should be able to sue the state and the liberal hack rag for violation of their civil rights. 4) When individuals show that they are not able to responsibly handle their rights, it is routine for those rights to be taken away (i.e. if you are an irresponsible gun owner, you will lose your right to keep and bear arms). In this case, the editors, reporters, and publishers showed themselves to be incapable of responsibly exercising their first Amendment rights, and so should obviously lose them - just as someone who irresponsibly shoots a bunch of people will lose their 2nd Amendment rights. I think we can all agree that this might give the government too much power - so it is up to the 4th estate to police itself - and is why I call for all responsible media outlets to blacklist all people associated with this irresponsible hack rag and any other media outlet that supports their vile and disgusting works.

People are dangerous, tools are just a force multiplier.

People are dangerous, tools are just a force multiplier.

Spree killers and the culture of violence

In the wake of any tragedy like this, I keep hearing people (columnists, journalists, bloggers, politicians, and celebrities) complaining about the "Gun Culture" in America. The problem is not the "Gun Culture", but the "Culture of Violence" and lack of consequences. Simply owning a gun doesn't make you part of the "Gun Culture". There are even members of the "Gun Culture" who don't own guns (lots of military members don't own a gun of their own, for example, and some older gun enthusiasts have to give up their guns when they move to "senior living communities" where guns are banned). In the "Gun Culture", safety and respect are the foundations. Members of the "Gun Culture" know and respect the capabilities of firearms, and place safety first. They know that while the shooting sports can be fun, guns are not toys. They know that there are consequences if they are unsafe, or make mistakes, so they are careful. If you want to see the "Gun Culture" go to your local gun club and meet some regular Americans. If you want to experience the "Culture of Violence" and lack of consequences, turn on you radio or TV, and listen to or watch the celebrities. The same celebrities who complain about the "Gun Culture" when a violent massacre occurs make films, television shows, and CDs that promote and glorify violence - often random violence and killing innocents. Some of these celebrities will refuse to do nude or sexual scenes, because it "goes against their values" - yet even the most anti-gun actors have no qualms about making violent action pictures where they use firearms in ways that are often unsafe and indiscriminate, thus glorifying violence and desensitizing their audiences to killing. Look to the news media who glamorize and sensationalize these violent crimes, in a transparent attempt to boost ratings by generating an environment of fear and uncertainty. Look at the politicians who rush to the scene, to grab the spotlight and make sure that they capitalize on the tragedy to further their own agendas. This is how the "Culture of Violence" responds to a tragedy - by hypocritically mouthing the right words of condolence while seeking to capitalize on the tragedy to gain more fame, power, prestige, or money for themselves. When a person is new to the "Gun Culture" they often have to unlearn bad habits that the media's "Culture of Violence" has indoctrinated them into. In the "Gun Culture" you don't point a firearm at anyone or anything you are not willing to shoot. And shooting someone means they may be killed, and will certainly be harmed - just as shooting something will damage and possibly destroy it. The first precept in the "Gun Culture" is safety, because firearms are dangerous tools. Close behind it comes responsibility - because there are consequences if you mishandle a firearm. The concept of consequences is not drilled into average Americans to any great extent - and certainly not to the extent that it is taught in the "Gun Culture".* The third is respect - because you need to respect the capabilities of the firearm, and of the shooter, as well as respecting those around you. When a novice starts to make a mistake, such as unsafely handling a firearm, other members of the "Gun Culture" don't shoot them down in their tracks - they stop them, and explain to them what they are doing, why it's unsafe, what the consequences could be, and why they must respect the potential consequences and the safety of others. There is a lot of truth in the old saying that "An armed society is a polite society". Of course, manners and politeness are other areas where the "Gun Culture" is quite different from the rest of American society - the "Culture of Violence" is often one of self-centered disrespect. Most of the violent crime (both with and without guns) in America takes place in large urban areas - where the "Culture of Violence" is much more prevalent than the "Gun Culture". When we talk about violence and guns, and start demanding solutions, maybe we should look at what the actual causes of the problems are, before jumping into action without thinking it through. *In American schools, children will often be "socially promoted" to the next grade, even if they fail every subject. A student who misses class, doesn't pay attention to the lessons, refuses to do their work, and fails to learn will not suffer any consequences - at least not until they are an adult, and are expected to earn a living (or at least be able to fill out welfare forms). A youth who joins a gang, and engages in criminal behaviors may be arrested dozens of times without ever seeing the inside of a jail or prison - there will be an army of social workers, attorneys, case managers, and ethnic advocates to help to protect them from ever experiencing any real consequences for their criminal acts - at least until they reach adulthood.