“If you build it, they will come,” a much overused expression for just about any kind of venture, originally referred to a “Field of Dreams” ballpark in an isolated Iowa cornfield that would attract the unsettled spirits of disgraced ballplayers. In the case of the Boston University Biosafety Lab on Albany Street, which has stood for several years awaiting resolution of a controversial risk assessment, it is more like “If you open it, they may come.”

The “they” in this instance are a lot more worrisome than a bunch of ghosts with leather gloves. The “they” include nefarious folks, terrorists and saboteurs who would see the facility as a prime target for their malicious schemes.

Despite a healthy dose of resistance from my South End community to a perceived health risk, Boston University has been eager to establish a Level 4 biosafety lab for research on highly dangerous pathogens. The interests of science were delayed, however, when the first risk assessment report, released two years ago, was deemed wholly inadequate, particularly given the high stakes of potentially exposing a densely populated area to Ebola and other deadly viruses.

Thursday night’s deadly shoot-out in Greenland, N.H., occurring on the same day as a fatal stand-off in Modesto, Calif., has some observers around the country wondering if the job of a police officer is perhaps getting appreciably more dangerous. And, oddly enough, a story in last Monday’s New York Times, under the ominous headline “Even as Violent Crime Falls, Killing of Officers Rises,” would seem to confirm the impression:

"As violent crime has decreased across the country, a disturbing trend has emerged: rising numbers of police officers are being killed. According to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 72 officers were killed by perpetrators in 2011, a 25 percent increase from the previous year and a 75 percent increase from 2008."

There is more to the matter than the Times noted in its suddenly and sadly relevant story. These are the FBI figures on the number of police officers feloniously killed (as opposed to those killed accidentally) that the Times would have used for its report, data which show a sharp rise in fatalities.

Where is the outrage? More to the point, where is the news coverage?

You may have missed it. Actually, unless you were searching for it (or are a frequent viewer of Sean Hannity's show), you probably did.

It seems that a version of the 911 tape that we all heard over and over again of George Zimmerman calling the cops to report suspicious behavior by 17-year-old Trayvon Martin just before fatally shooting the boy was like something out of the Nixon White House -- edited. Sure, we all heard it with our own ears, but it is what we didn’t hear that’s key to understanding the confrontation between the neighborhood watchman and the Skittles-toting youngster.

The sad news is that mass murder has once against erupted on a college campus -- apparently, not even small church-affiliated schools are immune. The fortunate news, however, is that no matter how shocking and headline-grabbing, shooting rampages on college campuses are extremely rare.

Notwithstanding the low risk for college campuses--large and small, public and private, religious and non-sectarian, there are certain themes that emerge time and time again in these tragic episodes. And the latest horror at Oikos University in Oakland, which, based on early reports, implicated a 43-year-old man of Asian descent who had failed to complete a degree in a professional field, is eerily consistent with the pattern to earlier campus shootings with multiple victims.

Tomorrow morning, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases, Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama, challenging the controversial practice of sentencing juvenile offenders to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Hopefully, the Court will resist the common visceral response to youth violence and consider the scientific evidence that, as compared with adults, adolescents are less equipped to contemplate the consequences of their crimes, are more susceptible to pressure from peers to engage in behaviors they would not ordinarily commit on their own, and may, therefore, someday earn a second chance.

It has been decades since state legislatures around the country overreacted to the late-1980s surge in youth violence by expanding the pool of juveniles who could be tried and punished as if they were adults. Several criminologists (with me among them) had warned that juvenile crime rates could continue to surge if there were not a deep and determined investment in youth development. Unfortunately, most politicians took an alternative approach, emphasizing punishment rather than prevention.

The wholesale transfer of juveniles to the jurisdiction of the criminal court was supported by the catchy, yet illogical slogan, “adult time for adult crime.” Juveniles may look like adults, talk like adults, and even kill like adults, but they reason like the immature kids they are really are. Adolescents are not just a smaller version of adults.

The recent controversy over the R rating preliminarily given to a forthcoming documentary about teenage bullying clearly exposes a real limitation to the existing movie rating system. The voluntary motion picture code of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a brainchild of the late Jack Valenti, is designed to shield children from content inappropriate for their age and maturity level.

In the case of Bully, the mature rating was earned because of the frequent profanity uttered by the teens in the film. Unless either side (the MPAA or the film’s producer) relents, the rating would restrict access to Bully’s anti-violence message for the very group who would most benefit from seeing it—teenagers.

Perhaps the MMPA expects that teens and their parents will attend the film together (permitted under the R restriction). But for many adolescents, there are few things more embarrassing than being seen in the theater sitting next to their parents. Alternatively, teenagers could always sidestep the MMPA morality marshals by waiting until the film is released on DVD or on cable.

Hopefully, the ratings mess surrounding Bully will be resolved in time for the film’s release scheduled for the end of this month. Even so, there is a much larger problem associated with film ratings, as well as similar rating systems for TV and video games. Not only do rating systems fail to achieve the desired outcome, they often have the reverse effect. Ratings typically do more to attract young audiences to mature content than to deter them.

There is one thing that makes me even more uncomfortable than the thought of being surrounded by lots of strangers with concealed weapons beneath their coats. It is the thought of being surrounded by any strangers with concealed weapons beneath their coats and paranoid ideas floating around their brains. Pistols and paranoia are a scary mix indeed.

According to the non-psychiatric vernacular, paranoia is “a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others.” As such, there is now and has been in previous years the rather unrealistic fear on the part of many gun advocates that some autocrat holding the keys to the White House will decide to round up all of their guns.

Note: This also appeared on the op-ed page in the February 18, 2012 Boston Globe.

The recent prison fire in Honduras that engulfed and killed more than 350 inmates who were unable to escape their locked and crowded barracks may have occurred in a faraway land where life is cheap and human rights are few, but such tragedies are waiting to happen much closer to home.

With the high level of disregard and disdain that so many US citizens have for criminals secured away in our state prisons and county jails, few ever consider the plight of prisoners in the face of disaster, be it sudden or foreseen.

No surprise that there aren’t many criminologist jokes floating about, at least as far as I’m aware. Still, I do recall one I heard back in graduate school that may actually have some relevance to the ongoing debate up on Beacon Hill concerning the best approach to punishing the worst offenders.

It is told that there was once a very old land ruled by a very old King who, in a gesture of compassion from his deathbed, ordered all prison sentences to be immediately cut in half. By the King’s decree, a robber’s ten-year prison term was commuted to five years, and the rapist who was serving a 30-year sentence saw his penalty reduced to 15 years. But prison officials, having to carry out the King’s wishes without deviation, had no clue on how to proceed with halving the sentences of murderers serving life. The Warden was just about as confused as many appear today about the House and Senate bills pertaining to habitual offenders.

To make a long and lame story short and painless, the punch line came in the advice that the Warden received when consulting with a local criminologist about how to administer half a life sentence. “Let the murderer go free tomorrow,” recommended the criminologist. But before the Warden could utter a word of dismay, the learned advisor continued detailing the plan. “Then bring him back to prison the next day, and continue the release/return process for alternating days of freedom and incarceration until the convict dies a natural death.” Never was the term “revolving justice” any truer.

If you haven't been paying attention to the academic calendar, you may not be aware that today is "No Name Calling Day" in elementary and secondary schools statewide. And, as a way for students to pledge repudiation of the insidious practice of bullying, they are being asked to wear black to indicate their willingness to "Black Out Bullying."

When declaring January 25th as a day to raise awareness, Governor Deval Patrick noted:

?In my role as Governor and as a father of two daughters, I firmly believe that every child should come to school knowing that they are safe and free from bullying. No Name Calling Day will remind us of the type of vigilance we should exhibit every day to ensure our students are free from the dangers and distractions of bullying.?

Promises are cheap and easy, as is wearing some piece of black attire. The question is whether this will have any real effect on bullying, short-term or long-term, when, literally, push comes to shove. Or, is it little more than cosmetic?

When it comes to criminal justice matters, some politicians get it--and Governor Deval Patrick is one of them. . Unlike the "get tough at all costs" blowhards who pander to the three R's--Retribution, Revenge and Retaliation--for the sake of the ultimate R of Re-election, some leaders recognize the critical importance of crime prevention, treatment and rehabilitation.

Regrettably, the prevention approach has at times been disparaged as "worthless" and as "soft on crime." Yet, this cynical perspective reflects gross misunderstanding of the process and goals of prevention, and a selective examination of outcomes. Simply put: Prevention programs can work; good prevention programs that are well-implement do work.

Too often, prevention initiatives are funded and implemented on a shoestring, and a rather short shoe-string with a brief window of opportunity to show results. This is a recipe for failure and provides additional fodder for skeptics. Besides the matter of funding adequacy, there are five fundamental principles of crime and violence prevention that are critical to a successful investment.

A new 400-page master plan for meeting the state’s future needs for managing an aging prison population (aging in terms of both the inmates and the institutions in which they live) has been sharply criticized by law makers and law enforcers alike. The plan calls for billions of dollars to deal with the state’s crowded prison conditions and projected health care costs for lifers and other inmates as they grow old behind prison walls.

The critical response is not at all surprising. Prisons management has long been a lightning rod, as it involves two hot issues--public funds and public safety. There is no doubt that incarceration works as a crime control measure, but at a substantial price tag: effective to be sure; but cost-effective, not so much.

It remains to be seen whether the sentencing reform legislation moving through the State House will significantly impact on future correctional needs. There is some desire to dismantle mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent offenders, yet the “three strikes” impact on prisoner release may off-set the savings.

After today, the Republican hopefuls for the Presidency will leave the Granite State, some disappointed by their showing in the New Hampshire primary while others energized as they move on to the next preliminary. Over the past week or more, political operatives have been busy arranging TV spots and campaign stops for their candidates, endeavoring to win over the surprisingly sizable pool of undecided voters.

Selections of media-targeted photo opportunities tend to say a lot about a candidate. And in Saturday's Boston Globe, two of the contenders were unabashedly playing up to gun-loving conservative voters in New Hampshire and elsewhere. FULL ENTRY

The turn of the calendar always brings news about how crime levels have trended over the previous year. And like many cities around the country, Boston witnessed fewer crimes in 2011 than 2010, including a double-digit drop in homicide.
 
With crime rates at a 50-year low, this is a good time to re-examine our criminal justice policies, especially those measures implemented in a knee-jerk fashion when crime rates and higher levels of fear were peaking. We should begin in the areas that are a significant drain on the budget, such as our over-reliance on lengthy prison terms for juvenile murderers who, after decades of incarceration, no longer pose a danger to society. And this is hardly a left-wing, soft-on-crime idea, as even conservatives like Newt Gingrich have argued that we can't afford to continue pouring vast sums of tax dollars into prison systems.

It was good to see Colton Harris-Moore, the young man who was dubbed by the media last year as the “Barefoot Bandit” and applauded by thousands of fans for his brazenness and elusiveness, sentenced to seven years in a Washington state prison for his multi-national crime spree. It was important for the court to send a strong message that the 20-year-old’s crimes were punishable, not admirable.

Whatever statement the penalty would make, the judge had her own to place on the record. While announcing a sentence at the lower end of the statutory range, Judge Vickie Churchill added, “This case is a tragedy in many ways, but it's a triumph of the human spirit in other ways.”

Although it was certainly appropriate for the judge to have considered mitigating circumstances in determining sentence length, her expressions of compassion and sympathy for the defendant’s troubled childhood would only add to his appeal – appeal in the non-legal sense of the term. Many people endure childhood trauma far more severe than Harris-Moore, yet never respond by stealing airplanes and other valued property.

Like most people, I struggle every year to come up with creative gift ideas for all the family members and close friends on my holiday shopping list. Well, this season, the task was easy. With an eye toward the practical, I’m buying them all bullet-proof vests.

Why should I be so motivated this year when crime rates, including that of murder, are relatively low? My worry is two-fold: the growing momentum of concealed-carry legislation in many jurisdictions combined with Congressional action that would establish reciprocity among the states in the right to carry loaded firearms.

Anyone living anywhere except under a rock would have reacted to yesterday's news of a shooting at Virginia Tech by recalling the unspeakable horror that occurred nearly five years ago on that Blacksburg campus. No one needed a reminder of what came before.

The New York Times, however, felt it necessary and appropriate to lead its coverage of what appears to have been a cop murder then suicide with a first-phrase reference to that tragic day in April 2007.

BLACKSBURG, Va. — Nearly five years after a massacre at Virginia Tech that was the deadliest ever on a school campus, two men, including a campus police officer, died of gunshot wounds there on Thursday afternoon.

Of course, yesterday’s deaths may not have been quite as newsworthy were it not for earlier events.

It hardly takes a brain surgeon -- or rather a specialist in forensic psychiatry -- to recognize that Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is profoundly mentally ill. His writings, including a 1,500 page manifesto, and his explanations for why he needed to slaughter 77 of his countrymen leave little doubt as to his psychiatric impairment.

The issue of legal insanity is somewhat different, however, from a medical definition of mental illness. Also different are the insanity law and procedures used in Norway as compared to the United States.

According to Norwegian law, a psychotic state of mind at the time of the crime can mitigate criminal responsibility. And, based on a detailed assessment of the accused, including more than a dozen face-to-face interviews with the man, two court-appointed forensic experts have concluded that Breivik was suffering from such paranoid delusions of a psychotic nature that would constitute legal insanity.

I’m waiting to see what the behavior police at the National Football League will do in response to the display of unsportsmanlike conduct at last night’s nationally televised Eagles-Giants game.

I’m not talking about the sequence of post-whistle skirmishes between the two rivals of the gridiron or the fight that resulted in offsetting penalties on players from both teams. I’m also not referring to the stupid taunts from Eagles DeSean Jackson directed toward the entire Giants team after the receiver pulled in a 50-yard pass right in front of the opponent’s bench -- a truly juvenile act that prompted a penalty flag negating the big gain.

I’m much more concerned about a spontaneous celebration from Eagles linebacker Brian Rolle midway through the second quarter, a rookie mistake that warrants an NFL sanction. You may have missed it -- the refs apparently did. And the NBC announcers failed to take notice, even when the player’s antics were shown on replay.

Currently under consideration by the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary is a pair of bills (S. 672 and H. 1346) that would eliminate sentences of life without parole for juvenile murderers. Under the existing statute, passed back in 1996, all juveniles as young as 14 convicted of first degree murder -- including felony-murder and acts committed by accomplices -- are hopelessly ineligible for parole consideration.

In its breadth and rigidity, Massachusetts law stands as one of the very stiffest in the nation. The proposed juvenile justice reform would directly impact the 59 juvenile murderers currently locked up for life in Massachusetts prisons. If the legislation is passed and signed into law, the Massachusetts parole board would be empowered to grant second chances to juvenile murderers, that is, of course, only if deserving of such after lengthy incarceration.

An amendment to the Senate parole reform bill (S.2054) debated today included a provision to grant parole eligibility to juveniles convicted of murder. Unfortunately, and to the disappointment of amender Sen. Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester), that provision was dropped.

I noted last July, just following Boston’s stunning Independence Day surge in homicide, that certain days during the year tend to produce crime spikes. Violence frequently erupts by virtue of the usual activities (e.g., drinking, carousing, and partying with friends) that are associated with particular legal holidays and other unofficial occasions for diversion.

As shown in the chart below, the aggregate number of serious violent crimes (homicide, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault) in Boston for 2006 through 2009 spiked significantly upward on three specific dates--January 1, July 4 and October 31.

This was a good day for the criminal justice system. A federal judge set aside the death sentence given confessed serial killer Gary Lee Sampson upon proof that one of the jurors who had recommended death had concealed information that would have disqualified her from service.

Despite the fact that justice prevailed, this turn of events will undoubtedly upset many people -- and for very different reasons.

The latest Gallup survey of public opinion concerning the death penalty is encouraging yet somewhat misleading. According to Gallup, opposition to capital punishment stands as high as it has been at any point in time since 1972, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the sanction was unconstitutional in its uneven application against minorities and the poor. Based on 1,005 interviews taken between October 6 and October 9 of this year, 35% of respondents indicated their opposition to capital punishment.

Of course, turning that figure around (as many pro-death zealots will do), it is still the case that a healthy majority remains in favor of capital punishment. Specifically, 61% of the Gallup respondents was in favor of the death penalty, with another 4% offering no opinion on the matter.

I am aware of the often difficult determination about which individuals deserve, through good deed or bad, to be featured on the obituary page. Well, it must have been a really slow day (did death really take a holiday?) for the Globe to include a New York Times story about the passing of Canadian serial killer Clifford Olson.

Few Americans would have recognized Olson’s name or face from the picture that accompanied the story. Arguably, he is (and now was) Canada’s most infamous serial killer of all time -- if not in fact than at least in his own mind. Of course, most people on this side of the border pay very little attention to what goes on in Canada.

Who is to blame for the chaos that erupted in the early morning hours near the Rose Kennedy Greenway, as the Boston Police used their muscle and might in an attempt to control and manage a raucous crowd of protestors?

Were the protesters wrong in literally overstepping the ground rules by trespassing into newly renovated space? Or were the cops wrong in overstepping their authority by using force and the power of arrest in the name of peace-keeping? In such situations, neither side is typically blameless.