The Legal Context of School Violence: The Effectiveness of Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Efforts to Reduce Gun Violence in Schools

In the wake of recent school shootings, communities and legislatures are searching for law enforcement solutions to the perceived epidemic of school violence. A variety of legal measures have been debated and proposed. These include: the enactment of tougher gun control laws and more vigorous federal and local enforcement of existing gun control laws; the enactment of laws imposing civil or criminal liability on parents for their children's violent behavior; the establishment of specialized courts and prosecution strategies for handling juveniles who are charged with weapons offenses; stricter enforcement of school disciplinary codes; reform of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to make it easier to expel students for weapons violations; and greater use of alternative schools as placements for students who are charged with weapons violations.
  This article provides a legal and empirical analysis of proposed legislation in these areas as informed by social science research on the patterns of school violence, gun acquisition by juveniles, and the effectiveness of various laws and law enforcement measures. It proposes and discusses recommendations for legal reform. While efforts to reduce school violence will be most effective at the state and local levels, the United States federal government has an important role to play, particularly in federal‐state partnerships aimed at disrupting illegal gun markets, and through the formulation of national standards and guidelines. These standards and guidelines are for the enforcement of existing laws; inter‐agency law enforcement cooperation and information‐sharing (particularly using computer‐based analysis); effective school discipline and alternative educational settings for disruptive youth; and psycho‐educational interventions designed to detect and prevent school violence in the first place.     

The problem with criminal records: Discrepancies between state reports and private-sector background checks

Criminal records are routinely used by employers and other institutional decision-makers who rely on their presumed fidelity to evaluate applicants. We analyze criminal records for a sample of 101 people, comparing official state reports, two sources of private-sector background checks (one regulated and one unregulated by federal law), and qualitative interviews. Based on our analysis, private-sector background checks are laden with false-positive and false-negative errors: 60 percent and 50 percent of participants had at least one false-positive error on their regulated and unregulated background checks, and nearly all (90 percent and 92 percent of participants, respectively) had at least one false-negative error. We define specific problems with private-sector criminal records: mismatched data that create false negatives, missing case dispositions that create incomplete and misleading criminal records, and incorrect data that create false positives. Accompanying qualitative interviews show how errors in background checks limit access to social opportunities ranging from employment to education to housing and violate basic principles of fairness in the legal system.     

Can computed tomography replace or supplement autopsy?

Postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) has been integrated into the practice of many forensic pathologists. To evaluate the utility of PMCT in supplementing and/or supplanting medicolegal autopsy, we conducted a prospective double-blind comparison of abnormal findings reported by the autopsy pathologist with those reported by a radiologist reviewing the PMCT. We reviewed 890 cases: 167 with blunt force injury (BFI), 63 with pediatric trauma (under 5 years), 203 firearm injuries, and 457 drug poisoning deaths. Autopsy and radiology reports were coded using the Abbreviated Injury Scale and abnormal findings and cause of death (COD) were compared for congruence in consensus conferences with novel pathologists and radiologists. Overall sensitivity for recognizing abnormal findings was 71% for PMCT and 74.6% for autopsy. Sensitivities for PMCT/autopsy were 74%/73.1% for BFI, 61.5%/71.4% for pediatric trauma, 84.9%/83.7% for firearm injuries, and 56.5%/66.4% for drug poisoning deaths. COD assigned by reviewing PMCT/autopsy was correct in 88%/95.8% of BFI cases, 99%/99.5% of firearm fatalities, 82.5%/98.5% of pediatric trauma deaths, and 84%/100% of drug poisoning deaths of individuals younger than 50. Both autopsy and PMCT were imperfect in recognizing injuries. However, both methods identified the most important findings and are sufficient to establish COD in cases of BFI, pediatric trauma, firearm injuries and drug poisoning in individuals younger than 50. Ideally, all forensic pathologists would have access to a CT scanner and a consulting radiologist. This would allow a flexible approach that meets the diagnostic needs of each case and best serves decedents' families and other stakeholders.