A nadie le gusta pensar en la posibilidad de ser gravemente herido en un accidente, pero tomar un momento para considerar lo que podría suceder si usted está inconsciente en un accidente u otro desastre. ¿Cómo podrían las autoridades o el personal de emergencia notificar a sus seres queridos? Al rastrear el número de licencia de su coche o mirar su licencia de conducir, puede ser posible obtener su número de teléfono de su casa, pero a sus seres queridos puede no estar allí para recibir la llamada.
Debido a esta dificultad en la localización de los familiares de las víctimas de accidentes, la idea ECE nació. El concepto es simple: ECE simplemente programar la memoria del teléfono celular con el ECE acrónimo ("en caso de emergencia"), seguido de los nombres y números de teléfono de los que usted desea recibir un aviso en caso de emergencia. Por ejemplo, "ECE-1 John Smith" como una entrada de contactos almacenada en su teléfono le avise al personal de respuesta de emergencia para comunicarse con el Sr. Smith al número indicado. Usted puede programar tantos números como te gusta usar ECE-2, el ECE-3, etc, para que también se registran al consultorio de su persona de contacto de emergencia y / o números de teléfono celular.
Lanzado en el Reino Unido en mayo de 2005, el ECE fue la idea de Servicio de Ambulancias Anglian paramédico del Bob Brotchie. La idea ha sido promovida en una campaña a nivel nacional en el Reino Unido y está ganando en popularidad en los EE.UU. y otros países. Pegatinas están disponibles comercialmente (o usted puede hacer su propias) para colocar a su teléfono celular para alertar al personal de emergencia para el hecho de que usted tiene la información de contacto de emergencia almacenado en la memoria de su teléfono celular. También puede poner una pegatina en la parte posterior de su licencia de conducir u otra forma de identificación para que los rescatistas sepan dónde buscar la información de contacto de emergencia.
Programar su teléfono celular toma sólo unos minutos para llevarlo a cabo, sin embargo, puede ahorrar a usted ya sus seres queridos horas de angustia en el caso de una emergencia. Acceso rápido a su pariente más próximo, que será capaz de proporcionar su historial médico y cualquier información de fondo es necesario, también puede mejorar el éxito de su tratamiento de emergencia.
No one likes to think about the possibility of being seriously injured in an accident, but take a moment to consider what might happen if you’re rendered unconscious in an accident or other disaster. How would authorities or emergency personnel notify your loved ones? By tracing your car’s license number or looking at your driver’s license, it may be possible to obtain your home phone number, but your loved ones may not be there to receive the call.
Because of this difficulty in locating family members of accident victims, the ICE idea was born. The ICE concept is simple- simply program your cellular phone memory with the acronym ICE (“in case of emergency”) followed by the names and phone numbers of those whom you would wish to be notified in an emergency. For example, “ICE-1 John Smith” as a saved contact entry in your phone would alert emergency response personnel to contact Mr. Smith at the number listed. You can program as many numbers as you like using ICE-2, ICE-3, etc. so that your emergency contact person’s office and/or cellular phone numbers are also recorded.
Launched in the U.K. in May 2005, ICE was the idea of East Anglian Ambulance Service paramedic Bob Brotchie. The idea has been promoted in a nationwide campaign in the U.K. and is gaining in popularity in the U.S. and other countries. Stickers are commercially available (or you can make your own) to affix to your cell phone to alert emergency personnel to the fact that you have emergency contact information stored in your cell phone’s memory. You can also put a sticker on the back of your driver’s license or other form of identification so that rescuers will know where to look for emergency contact information.
Programming your cell phone takes only minutes to accomplish, yet it may save you and your loved ones hours of anguish in the event of an emergency. Rapid access to your next of kin, who will be able to provide your medical history and any background information needed, can also enhance the success of your emergency treatment.
The recidivism rate of inmates released from prison is well over 65 percent. Over 35 percent of probationers fail to successfully complete their period of supervision, and approximately 40 percent of those who successfully complete supervision reoffend.
Why ‘Tough on Crime’ Failed
June 9, 2015 03:51:00 am
By David J. Krajicek
Criminologist William R. Kelly pulls no punches in his assessment of the grim state of America’s churning criminal justice machine.
“And they have facilitated a large segment of the population cycling in and out of the justice system and becoming permanently dependent on public services, rather than being productive citizens.,” he adds.
Kelly is a University of Texas-Austin sociology professor and the founding director of the school’s Center for Criminology and Criminal Justice Research. In a conversation with David J. Krajicek, contributing editor ofThe Crime Report, Kelly explains why he believes the system is a “massive failure” and why Americans are not as vengeful as some politicians believe. He also offers some ideas about where we go from here.
The Crime Report: You write that the United States spends about $260 billion a year on criminal justice. What do we get for our money?
William R. Kelly: An undeniably poor return on investment. The recidivism rate of inmates released from prison is well over 65 percent. Over 35 percent of probationers fail to successfully complete their period of supervision, and approximately 40 percent of those who successfully complete supervision reoffend. To be fair, some crime is averted, or at lease delayed, while offenders are in prison or on community supervision. However, our focus on punishment and control is in many, many cases only a temporary reprieve from crime. If we fail to address the reasons individuals engage in crime in the first place, how can we realistically expect anything to be different when someone is released from prison or discharged from probation?
TCR: You suggest that Americans slept through this expensive disaster. How could we have been so wrong about so much?
Kelly: Punishment made perfect sense when crime control was launched in the 1960s and 1970s. Crime was rampant, disorder was commonplace, and the obvious answer was ‘get tough.’ Punishment is intuitive and logical, it is something that most of us grew up with; it is part of the socialization process; and it generally works…We got it so wrong because we assumed that criminal offenders would respond to punishment or its threat the same way we do. The problem is that criminal offenders are not us. They differ in fundamental ways, and those differences often render punishment inert. Policymakers missed that. Policymakers continued to miss it well after the evidence of its ineffectiveness was obvious.
TCR: But is “tough on crime” really finished? I see many anecdotal examples of dithering by politicians.
Kelly: Not at all. We hear less of the tough-on-crime rhetoric that has characterized election campaigns at the national, state and local levels over the past few decades, but tough is instilled in the political culture and continues to have a robust influence. On top of that, the idea that there are more effective and less costly alternatives for reducing crime and recidivism is slow to evolve, especially when we live in a culture that has an uncomfortable relationship with science. Crime policy has entered the national discussion for the first time in many years. Every presidential candidate has suggested some change to justice policy…but generally they are offering safe, cautious and piecemeal ideas.
None of the national candidates has declared a war on tough on crime and I doubt any will. While ‘smart on crime’ has entered the discussion of crime policy, I don’t think we have even purchased tough-on-crime’s coffin, let alone started pounding nails in it. There are also powerful economic incentives to keep the train moving in the same direction, including the private prison and security industry which annually spends enormous sums of money lobbying Congress, state legislatures and local government. Moreover, local communities throughout the U.S have a clear economic stake in this, since prisons and other correctional facilities are economic drivers in areas with few alternatives.
TCR: You present a withering portrait of America’s naiveté about crime. Why are we so uninformed about a subject that has been a national obsession for generations now?
Kelly: We do not routinely make a priority of independently educating ourselves on policy issues. Research indicates that opinion formation on policy matters like crime and punishment is greatly influenced by what elected officials say…That has been the consistent message, and pointing to the crime decline of the 1990s and 2000s has been used as proof of its effectiveness.
TCR: You write that the crime decline of the 1990s was a global phenomenon, a point that is largely overlooked in the U.S. Why is that important?
Kelly: We have been told that the correlation between increases in incarceration and declines in crime rates is clear evidence that tough-on-crime is effective. Knowing that nearly every other Western nation has experienced very similar declines in crime rates without punitive crime policies clearly questions the efficacy of our tough-on-crime policies. That, in combination with the recidivism rate, is straightforward and compelling evidence that our tough-on-crime experiment is a failure.
TCR: You say it is time to get beyond anger-based sentencing. Are we sensible enough to move past retribution in our system of punishment?
Kelly: I believe that we have the tools to develop and operate a much smarter approach to criminal justice. I don’t know if we are mature enough to move beyond retribution-based sentencing, but I believe the public and policy makers do understand saving money and enhancing public safety. That will require criminal sentencing that is based much less on emotion and much more on utility. The key going forward is being able to differentiate between those we are truly, justifiably afraid of and those we are just mad at. We should incarcerate the one and get smarter about the other. And the latter should far outnumber the former.
TCR: A subhead in your book asks: “Are Americans a Vengeful Lot?” Are we?
Kelly: Less so than prosecutors, judges and politicians seem to think…The public is much more balanced in their views of crime and punishment than elected officials give them credit for…It points out a major disjuncture between what the public thinks and what our elected representatives think and do.
TCR: Has anything positive resulted from the mandatory minimums frenzy?
Kelly: Yes, but it is like the one pellet from a shotgun blast hitting the target while the rest fly randomly into the air…Occasionally, mandatory sentences keep a truly dangerous person off the streets for an extended period of time; but overall, mandatory sentencing has been highly inefficient and unjust.
TCR: You cite rather extraordinary research that suggests there is no correlation between the length of a prison term and the likelihood of an individual reoffending. Do we fundamentally misunderstand punishment?
Kelly: Punishment doesn’t work because it doesn’t change anything, except to aggravate many of the conditions, disorders and problems that criminal offenders face. This is not making excuses for criminal offenders. This is simply recognizing that many criminal offenders enter the justice system with mental illness, substance abuse, neurodevelopmental and neurocognitive impairments, intellectual impairments, educational deficits, and employment problems, to name a few. Imprisonment does nothing to treat those conditions…
We then release these individuals with little more than $50 or $100 in gate money, the name of a parole officer, and few if any resources in place to facilitate reentry and reintegration into the community. What do we expect him to do?...That is where the reality, the science, smacks up against common sense. We just cannot punish crime out of those with the characteristics and circumstances many offenders have.
TCR: Your book makes the case that poverty and crime are inextricably linked—that states with the highest incarceration rates also rank poorly on child welfare. Explain.
Kelly: The American criminal justice system is the de facto solution for the failures of a variety of public institutions. Or, perhaps more accurately, it has been the dumping ground for the products of many of these failures. Failure to adequately address problems of poverty, mental health, substance abuse and public education all contribute to crime and have substantial impacts on the criminal justice system. Decisions by federal, state and local officials about funding allocations for various programs and services also have significant impacts on their criminal justice systems…Our western European allies have dramatically lower crime and extraordinarily different criminal justice systems (because)…they consider public health matters many of the things that we explicitly or implicitly criminalize, such as mental illness and substance abuse.
TCR: What role has race played in the criminal justice arc of the past 50 years, beginning with Barry Goldwater’s 1964 GOP nomination speech in which he suggested “tyranny” lay ahead unless we protected the streets from “bullies and marauders”?
Kelly: The demographics of crime and the criminal justice system tell the story pretty clearly. Observe any criminal court room, probation office, jail or prison. The majority of the offenders you see are minority. Some of this outcome is race bias in the justice system and a consequence of racial bias in society at large. At the end of the day, it is an effect of poverty and disadvantage, the relationship between race and poverty, and poverty and crime. Larger percentages of minorities are poor, and larger percentages of the poor commit crimes. Fear plays an important role in electoral politics and crime policy, and it is no coincidence that the typical face of crime is black or Hispanic.
TCR: Let’s talk about science. You say the path forward is through broad reforms that are scientifically sound and evidence-based. But America has a well-rutted recent record of being anti-science in its policymaking. Is the country ready for science in its criminal justice?
Kelly: I would not recommend that we position the path forward as the scientific path, largely because of the anti-science sentiment in the population that you note. Rather, it seems to me that the way to initiate reform is by focusing on the extraordinary cost of crime control. I believe that we can get more traction by initially making it a money issue. The recession triggered the current discussion of mass incarceration and punishment. Going forward, the focus should be on building a more effective criminal justice system that costs substantially less. We have the science behind this when it is needed for particular audiences, but the primary attributes of the “brand” it seems to me, should be less expensive, more effective, and safe.
TCR: Will that sell in the many statehouses dominated by old-school conservatives?
Kelly: Criminal justice reform has become bipartisan. The Koch brothers, Newt Gingrich, and Right on Crime are aligned with the ACLU and liberal Democrats on criminal justice reform. The two sides may have different motivations, but they see the same solutions.
TCR: Is the public buying into the reform movement faster than politicians?
Kelly: Absolutely, and has been for at least a decade. Public opinion has been consistently moving away from harsh punishment, including mandatory sentences and mandatory minimums, and more toward rehabilitation and diversion from incarceration.
TCR: American sentencing is a hodge-podge, with the federal government and all 50 states—from far-left liberal and to far-right conservative—doing their own thing. What would you do to bring order to this fragmented array?
Kelly: By highlighting the extraordinary cost and very low utility of retribution, states may begin shifting thinking about why we sentence, shifting more of the attention on the outcomes of sentencing decisions, especially toward what reduces recidivism. Much of the smart-on-crime initiative, from both the left and the right, is sentencing reform: elimination or reduction of mandatory sentences, and less incarceration sentences for non-violent and drug offenders. This is a good first step. And I suspect that many states will follow suit as these kinds of changes gain traction.
I doubt we ever get to sentencing uniformity across the states and the federal system, but I do think criminal sentencing should move away from the determinant systems we have today which are characterized by less judicial discretion and more predetermined or fixed sentences, to a system more like what we have 50 years ago where judges had considerable latitude in sentencing. The most important change in sentencing going forward is the shift from sentence as punishment to sentence as risk management and behavioral change. It should be a problem-solving effort, not a dose of punishment determination.
TCR: How would you fix parole, another messy residual issue from the 1990s?
Kelly: One way is to clarify the purpose of parole, which should be to balance public safety and enhance the successful reentry and reintegration into society. In the past, it has served mainly as a mechanism for supervision, control and revocation, with relatively less emphasis on successful reentry. A second is to adequately fund parole so that officers have realistic caseloads and appropriate resources for managing those individuals on their caseloads. A third is to appreciate that many offenders are returning to the community in worse shape than when they went in, and that the criminogenic needs and deficits that they went in with are no better when they are released…Obviously, when one reoffends, revocation should in many cases be the outcome. But revocation shouldn’t be the only option.
TCR: You write that many reforms require “substantial cultural change.” Explain.
Kelly: One of the more challenging obstacles to true change is the environment in which justice is administered, the culture of the organizations. In addition to changes in laws and procedure, we need to change the way we think about crime and punishment. Prosecutors and judges need to embrace the idea that punishment has limited utility and that the way to reduce recidivism is by identifying and addressing those factors related to an offender’s criminality. This involves moving from case processing to problem solving. That requires not only structural changes, but changes in beliefs and attitudes.
TCR: Much of the attention on criminal justice today is focused on conflicts (and shootings) between officers and citizens. Has the 35-year history we’ve been talking about had a bearing on how police and black citizens deal with one another?
Kelly: The failure of the criminal justice system to effectively reduce recidivism has aggravated many of the problems faced by law enforcement. Police are the face of the justice system in the community, so any frustrations, resentments, and anger that individuals in the community have as a result of problems with the justice system are likely directed toward police. The failure of the justice system to reduce recidivism results in a hardening of the offender population. Each time someone cycles in and out of the system, their risk of reoffending probably increases. That has consequences for how law enforcement deals with individuals, especially in high-risk neighborhoods.
TCR: You say that in many ways these first transactions of our justice system largely become irrelevant to all that comes afterward. Explain.
Kelly: There are several very important issues facing metropolitan policing today, including the strained relations with minority neighborhoods, and the attention on the use of force…Law enforcement activities also contribute significantly to racial disparities in the justice system. Having said that, I believe that the primary sources of failure in the American criminal justice system occur after someone is arrested. Law enforcement can have little impact on reducing recidivism of those offenders who enter the justice system. At the same time, there are important opportunities for police to engage in crime prevention in the community, but to be effective, that requires a substantial investment in community resources, an investment that we have not been willing to make on a scale necessary to significantly impact crime.
David J. Krajicek is a contributing editor for The Crime Report. Follow him on Twitter @DJKrajicek. He welcomes your comments.
22-year-old Kalief Browder, Jailed For Years Without Trial, Kills Himself
Kalief Browder was a 16-year-old sophomore when he was arrested, and later charged with second-degree robbery. Except he didn't do it. Here's a timeline of what happened:
Kalief Browder and a friend were returning home from a party in the Belmont section of the Bronx.
They were stopped by a squad car; the officer said they took someone's backpack.
Browder said they didn't rob anyone, so the police searched his their pockets, and found nothing.
The victim was in the squad car, and told the officers something new: they didn't rob him tonight, they robbed him a few days ago.
Browder and his friend were taken to the Forty-eighth Precinct, where they were kept in holding cells, then they were transferred to Central Booking at the Bronx County Criminal Court.
Browder had previous run-ins with the law as a juvenile and was therefore on probation, but he did not have an arrest record.
Seventeen hours after the police picked Browder up, an officer and a prosecutor interrogated him, and he again maintained his innocence.
The next day, he was led into a courtroom, where he learned that he had been charged with robbery, grand larceny, and assault.
The judge released Browder's friend, but since Browder was on probation, the judge ordered him to be held and set bail at three thousand dollars.
His parents could not afford the $3,000 bail, so Browder was sent to Rikers Island to await trial. He also could not afford a lawyer, so the court appointed him an attorney.
Browder spent three years in prison, waiting for his turn in court to prove his innocence, but that day never came.
By early 2012, prosecutors had offered Browder a deal—three and a half years in prison in exchange for a guilty plea. He refused, stating he was innocent.
He was released in 2013, and all charges against him were dropped.
That's right: he spent three years in Rikers just to have the case dismissed.
Browder spent the later part of his teen years at Rikers Island, without being convicted of a crime. He was completely innocent, and he endured what one could only describe as torture:
Being assigned to a housing unit that was ruled by a gang, and as he was not part of the gang, he experienced relentless physical abuse from inmates.
Abuse by officers and inmates on Rikers - proof of which can be watched here.
Almost two years (more than 400 days) in solitary confinement, without any administrative hearing.
While in solitary confinement, experiencing mice crawling up his bed sheets.
Being starved, begging prison guards for bread.
Having to wait over twelve hours for the next meal.
Not being taken to the shower for two weeks at a time.
Virtually no educational support; no GED or high school classes.
Limited "work sheets" were given to him and then corrected by an educator; no classroom style or one-on-one teaching occurred in three years.
He attempted suicide at least six times, no medical treatment was provided.
Not long after Browder was returned home, one of his relatives called an attorney named Paul V. Prestia.
Browder's case violates the six-month speedy-trial deadline or the defense attorney failed to bring a speedy-trial motion, and Prestia is determined to figure out what happened -- why this teenager spent three years at Rikers only to have his case dismissed.
Browder's current lawsuit against New York City, its police department, the Bronx district attorney and others, including several corrections officers claims he was falsely arrested, maliciously prosecuted, and denied a speedy trial.
Prestia has represented many clients who were wrongfully arrested, but Browder’s story troubles him most deeply. “Kalief was deprived of his right to a fair and speedy trial, his education, and, I would even argue, his entire adolescence,” he told the New Yorker. “If you took a sixteen-year-old kid and locked him in a room for twenty-three hours, your son or daughter, you’d be arrested for endangering the welfare of a child.”
Due to his experiences in Rikers, Kalief Browder suffered what can only be described as Post Traumatic Stress -- he told the New Yorker:
People tell me because I have this case against the city I'm all right...But I'm not all right. I'm messed up. I know that I might see some money from this case, but that's not going to help me mentally. I'm mentally scarred right now. That's how I feel. Because there are certain things that changed about me and they might not go back.
Kalief Browder's time in Rikers haunted him more than words could express. Though he was able to get his GED, a part-time job, and began classes at Bronx Community College (he had a 3.5 GPA), he suffered from flashbacks every day: He experienced severe paranoia, had to take medication, and he was confined to the psych ward in hospitals on two separate occasions.
After all Kalief Browder had endured, he hung himself on Saturday. He had just turned twenty-two.
The one thing we have in common is the certainty of our demise. Sure, we might die peacefully in our sleep at old age, but probably not. We asked a neurosurgeon, a forensic psychologist, a horror fiction writer and a horror film expert to speculate: How do nightmarish deaths manifest themselves in pop culture? What are the worst ways to experience death in real life?
Katherine Ramsland, Ph.D
Murder expert,professor of forensic psychology and criminal justice at DeSales University in Pennsylvania, therapist, consultant,author of 54 books
The answer to your question is complicated. Each person fears something that's individual to him or her, and each person has a pain tolerance level that could differ from others. Some would be in terror of being buried alive, while others might cite breathing water into their lungs, freezing, burning, or being slowly tortured or dismembered while alive. Some think the worst death is to be helplessly kept on life support and medicated for years as they waste away. I don't have an answer, because each person must answer this for him-or herself.
— IN 2013, JOÃO MARIA DE SOUZA was killed by a cow that fell through the roof. He was peacefully asleep next to his wife in Caratinga, Brazil when it happened. His wife and the cow were unharmed.
Horror and crime fiction writer, professor at at the University of Colorado Boulder
The most painful way to die, I think, is right after a betrayal. It doesn't matter if you're falling into a vat of needles or if Pinhead's come for you with his running buddies or if you're tied to an ant hill in the desert. Soul-pain hurts so much more.
This is why so many stories that hinge on survival use a deep betrayal as the final cut, as the big reveal. If the character can rally after that, then the physical battle that follows is really just compulsory, because the important fight's already been fought.
But there's also good ways to die, right? Dying as part of a sacrifice of some sort allows your neurons to brown out in a much more satisfying way. Take Kurt Russell's father-character in the Poseidon Adventure remake: he drowns, sure, which we've all heard's pretty brutal. And it looks brutal the way he drowns. But we know too that he's satisfied, that he's whole, that he knows this was for something better.
If you can go out as Sidney Carton, then, man, what else is there, right? But your neurons flickering out where the last thing jumping ahead of the failing light is "Why?," as in, "Why did this person I trusted do this?," that's pretty much the opposite of getting to be Sidney Carton, I think. What we want is wholeness at the end, rather that end involves Leatherface's chainsaw or something somewhat gentler, and a betrayal right before that, that brutally saps your death of that feeling of wholeness.
Associate professor of English and director of the Film StudiesProgram at the University of Pittsburgh
Horror films have been puzzling over this question for decades. What the creators and spectators of horror films know is that painful death is not simply a matter of preference for being eaten alive by ravenous piranha instead of rotting zombies. The most painful death is not a death of the body, but of something we might call the soul. This soul-death comes through being a complicit yet surviving witness in the awful death of others.
For example, Georges Franju’s French horror film Eyes Without a Face (Les Yeux sans visage, 1960) presents us with Christiane, a beautiful young woman whose face has was horribly disfigured in a car accident. She must wears an expressionless white mask to conceal the wounds. Her father, a brilliant but ultimately maniacal plastic surgeon who caused his daughter’s accident, insists that he will restore her face. All he needs is a young woman with similar features whose face he can surgically remove and then graft onto his daughter’s. At first, Christiane is so desperate to have her face and life returned to her that she consents to participating in her father’s cruel surgical experiments. [*SPOILER ALERT*] But as the corpses multiply and her knowledge of the young women who are forced to suffer and die for her grows, she rebels against her father. At the film’s conclusion, with her father torn apart by the dogs he had used as tests for his human surgeries, Christiane wanders alone into a dark forest. She is free, but her soul is dead. The impression we are left with is haunting anguish – Christiane has witnessed the worst and paid the price in pain. In turn, we have become her witnesses.
The genius of the best horror films is how they insist that the pain of soul-death is shared between what happens on the screen and what is felt by the spectator, long after the film has ended.
Director of Neurocritical Care,Mount Sinai Health System and Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Obviously the most painful way to die is to undergo some form of torture, like what you might see on an episode of Homeland. There are all kinds of horrible scenarios… but I’m more interested in a day-to-day phenomenon that is much more real.
Unfortunately, we witness high tech deaths in the intensive care unit on a regular basis in the United States and much of the developed world. This scenario plays out again and again with people who are at the end of life, attached to ventilators and other machines that only prolong the dying experience and increase pain and suffering. It's simply too painful emotionally for decision-makers to switch the plan to comfort. The psychological defense mechanisms are intractable.
The solution to this tragedy will come from our ability as a society to accept our own mortality. The problem is the denial of death. The solution is to face this reality clear-eyed, honestly, and with courage and serenity.
About 100 billion people have died in human history.