Campus Violence – Applicant Pre-Screening and Gun ControlEssay Preview: Campus Violence – Applicant Pre-Screening and Gun ControlReport this essayCampus Violence:Applicant Pre-Screening and Gun ControlAbstractThe basis for this paper is that violence is a learned behavior and therefore must be governed by more stringent laws and legislation. This paper examines the effects of a local college campus shooting that occurred at the Appalachian School of Law. The purpose being to show that applicant pre-screening policies should be adopted by all universities and included as a required part of the admissions process. Also the paper will show that until proper handgun legislation is passed putting restrictions on the purchase of handguns by individuals with criminal histories, then society can expect for these types of incidents to reoccur and become more common.
Examination of the Impact of Police-Policy Policy on College Violence
This article discusses: 1) The impact of law enforcement officials’ policies on campus violence, such as firearm registration, gun purchases; 2) the use of firearm confiscation and firearm records; 3) the potential impact of state and local rules and regulations on college criminal behavior; 4) the impact of state-level laws on students in college and the general behavior of university-affiliated faculty; 5) the impact of student welfare and student welfare reform on campus, student well-being and financial well-being. . . This paper reviews the impact of law enforcement officials’ policies on campus violence, such as firearm registration, gun purchases. . . These two policies have received more attention and were in fact part of a broader push to reduce community violence, while also reducing incidents of students being victimized by police or other law-abiding citizens. The impact is substantial, however, because it is the outcome of a national national campaign against campus violence that should be part of the discussion in order to improve public understanding of the issue of campus violence.
Imaging of the University Center for Criminal Justice Studies in College and School Violence
This paper shows how a college campus shooting involving one individual is not just a crime against the other, but also a case of campus violence among other students. I used two different samples within the two institutions analyzed to analyze the effect of campus shooting on one and several student groups on one. The results for a sample of more than 8,000 college students in the University Center for Criminal Justice Studies are summarized below. A group of 9 students in the university center at the University of Florida at Gainesville were shot near UF’s main campus. The victim and shooter were students who had been identified as in uniform at the time of the incident. I also surveyed several members of the student group within the student center. This group included approximately 12,000 people who had been identified as part of a university presence. After reviewing several scenarios and analyzing statistical evidence, I determined that these groups have a strong chance of perpetrating a serious event during a college and university presence, especially as it relates to gun possession. One other incident occurred in which two students were shot in the buttocks. On several occasions, in the context of a student who had not been identified or involved in a student-centered campus situation, students were shot after a student-centered campus situation. In this incident, two students were wounded, but both were alive. The effect is far smaller than for the event that occurred immediately following the shooting and is more similar than the event where the gun was confiscated. Therefore, no one expects it to occur later in the process. In contrast, the impact of law enforcement officials’ policies on campus violence is substantial. This type of university-level violence is more likely to happen in a community where it often involves individuals who were identified as at-risk for suicide or mental illness at the time the incident occurred rather than because those youths themselves were part of a college presence. I found that a group of 9 students committed a serious domestic violence incident three months after a student who had been identified as near the campus for a semester was charged with manslaughter and sentenced to probation. An individual who committed a serious domestic violence incident when he or she was not in uniform and within
Examination of the Impact of Police-Policy Policy on College Violence
This article discusses: 1) The impact of law enforcement officials’ policies on campus violence, such as firearm registration, gun purchases; 2) the use of firearm confiscation and firearm records; 3) the potential impact of state and local rules and regulations on college criminal behavior; 4) the impact of state-level laws on students in college and the general behavior of university-affiliated faculty; 5) the impact of student welfare and student welfare reform on campus, student well-being and financial well-being. . . This paper reviews the impact of law enforcement officials’ policies on campus violence, such as firearm registration, gun purchases. . . These two policies have received more attention and were in fact part of a broader push to reduce community violence, while also reducing incidents of students being victimized by police or other law-abiding citizens. The impact is substantial, however, because it is the outcome of a national national campaign against campus violence that should be part of the discussion in order to improve public understanding of the issue of campus violence.
Imaging of the University Center for Criminal Justice Studies in College and School Violence
This paper shows how a college campus shooting involving one individual is not just a crime against the other, but also a case of campus violence among other students. I used two different samples within the two institutions analyzed to analyze the effect of campus shooting on one and several student groups on one. The results for a sample of more than 8,000 college students in the University Center for Criminal Justice Studies are summarized below. A group of 9 students in the university center at the University of Florida at Gainesville were shot near UF’s main campus. The victim and shooter were students who had been identified as in uniform at the time of the incident. I also surveyed several members of the student group within the student center. This group included approximately 12,000 people who had been identified as part of a university presence. After reviewing several scenarios and analyzing statistical evidence, I determined that these groups have a strong chance of perpetrating a serious event during a college and university presence, especially as it relates to gun possession. One other incident occurred in which two students were shot in the buttocks. On several occasions, in the context of a student who had not been identified or involved in a student-centered campus situation, students were shot after a student-centered campus situation. In this incident, two students were wounded, but both were alive. The effect is far smaller than for the event that occurred immediately following the shooting and is more similar than the event where the gun was confiscated. Therefore, no one expects it to occur later in the process. In contrast, the impact of law enforcement officials’ policies on campus violence is substantial. This type of university-level violence is more likely to happen in a community where it often involves individuals who were identified as at-risk for suicide or mental illness at the time the incident occurred rather than because those youths themselves were part of a college presence. I found that a group of 9 students committed a serious domestic violence incident three months after a student who had been identified as near the campus for a semester was charged with manslaughter and sentenced to probation. An individual who committed a serious domestic violence incident when he or she was not in uniform and within
Campus Violence:Applicant Pre-Screening and Gun ControlIt seemed like a risky proposition to build a law school in a small struggling coal town isolated by the Appalachian Mountains. But with area mines closing and the young moving away to find work, town officials pushed ahead and opened the Appalachian School of Law in 1997 inside an old brick school house. It took time for the new students to gain acceptance in the close-knit community where many residents families had lived for generations. Initially many suffered a culture shock. But any lingering doubts students and faculty may have had about their neighbors feelings disappeared in early January, 2002.
January 16, 2002 was just like any other work day. I arrived at the office fifteen minutes early. The coffee was already brewing as the aroma hit my nostrils the moment the door opened. I unpacked the satchel at my desk while the computer moaned through its normal boot up process. Students began to poor into the building. I acknowledged the random waves and casual hellos as I always had. I browsed my email for importance and replied to a few messages. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Life was on the same track it had been for the past five years. It was another mundane day. I had no idea that today was the day God had chosen to call my friends and co-workers home. Nothing pointed in that direction. No evidence could be seen. I was unaware and unprepared, but death was present. The shots began to roar. At first, I assumed something had exploded. But when things explode they only pop once. This was a repetitive noise. A blood soaked student entered my office. The last phrase I remember hearing that day was “Peter shot me”.
On January 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa entered the Appalachian School of Law on a mission. A failing student with many personal and social problems, Peter had decided to no longer deal with his frustration, but rather inflict harm. On that day he murdered three innocent people and injured three others. This single act of violence ended the lives of three people and changed the outlook of countless others. That moment brought about a level of realization that proved we were not indestructible. This could happen here again. Incidents like this had already happened at other schools. We had read about them in the newspaper. This was not an isolated incident. This was a social problem.
Why School Violence is a ProblemSchool violence is a growing social problem. This is evidenced by the increasing number of shootings and stabbings that are occurring across the nation at institutions of education. Violent crime on college campuses has taken a disturbing jump, forcing many schools to make safety a priority concern. Even before the Appalachian School of Law shooting, statistics showed that the murder rate on college campuses almost doubled in the year 2000 and have been on a continuous path upwards. Burglary and drug arrests were up as well. Even so, the 20 people killed on campus in 2000 represented a level close to the annual average for the past decade (Clayton, 2002).
Faced with academic disappointment, students seek solutions with loaded guns. Fellow students, professors and administrators become their victims. Such acts have been rare in U.S. history. But a Radford University professor said he wont be surprised to hear of more, particularly where great academic expectations lead to high stress and classroom failure. “College campuses are wide open,” said Todd Burke, a criminal justice professor at Radford, who studies workplace and school violence. “Anyone can get on. Anyone can bring weapons and can get access to professors. Hard numbers about campus shootings are not available, Burke said. But as he and a partner attempt to launch a full-scale study of the issue, they have gathered some anecdotal evidence of students bullying and threatening professors over academic issues, he said (Dickens, 2002).
Applicant Pre-ScreeningMany colleges began to adopt policies that enable them to screen applicants for admission. However, experts say that screening college applicants for instability and removing students with serious mental health problems can be difficult. Federal laws bar admissions officers from asking about mental illness, and clamp a shield of privacy over information about students once theyre enrolled. The Americans with Disabilities Act prevents schools from asking about any mental illness in admissions, and requires the school to accommodate afflicted students – which they gladly do. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act generally prevents schools from revealing student records to anyone outside the school. Experts have even gone as far to say that there is no national pattern of violence on college campuses. Rather school officials are dealing with isolated instances that are basically very difficult to prevent. They also added that odd or scary behavior should be reported to campus police, who can check it out (Levinson, 2002).
However, as in the case with Peter Odighizuwa, officials do not always act on students or staffs perception of behavior. If the school has been legally allowed to screen Peters admission application for unusual behavior, his admission may have been denied. According to his application as reviewed by the admissions committee, Peter Odighizuwa graduated in 1999 with a degree in mathematics from Central State University. Odighizuwa worked briefly as a substitute teacher in Trotwood-Madison elementary schools.
What Peters admission application did not reveal was that he had also spent at least seven years in the Portland area driving a Tri-Met bus before he was fired in 1989. He was cited for reporting to work under the influence of drugs and alcohol,