For many years, excessive consumption of alcohol has significantly been associated with crime and aggression all around the world. Many articles and research writers have authored various projects trying to prove and link crime and attack on alcohol consumption. Even in the scholarly textbooks used in class for learning, one of the many effects of alcohol consumption is that an addict may get involved in crime to get money to sustain their drinking behavior. Also, another fact in the books states that a drunkard may show aggression to others and especially those close to him, such as his family members resulting in domestic violence. In as much as the effects mentioned above are somehow right, and research studies have tried to prove so, my opinion may defer regarding the closing of liquor stores. For instance, the city of Baltimore claims that the closing of liquor stores would prevent homicide. In my perspective, the presence of liquor stores in Baltimore has little effect on crime and aggression. Aggression and crimes such as homicide are far much caused by other issues other than the presence of liquor stores and alcoholism alone. The fact is that yes, the problems mentioned above may be correlated to crime and aggression, but that is not the sole reason why such problems exist in society and particularly the Baltimore community.
When one commits a crime, they are said to have made an offense that is punishable by the law, especially that of state or any other authority. Crime may take various forms ranging from first degree to fifth-degree felonies. However, the bottom line is that when one commits a crime, they are found guilty and, in most cases, charged with an offence. The variation in crime may come from different categories of crime, such as personal crime, statutory crime, property crime, inchoate crime, and even financial crime. In this case, homicide falls under the personal crime category since there is physical harm to the victim leading to their death. When a crime is termed as homicide, it means that an individual has killed another be regardless of whether it was intentionally or unintentionally. If a person kills another willingly and deliberately, the offender is convicted with first-degree murder charges since the act was premeditated and done out of malice from the aforethought. Besides, when a person kills another intentionally but without premeditation as a result of provocation, the offender is found guilty and charged with voluntary manslaughter. However, whenever a person kills the other unintentionally, with no deliberation, could be due to criminal negligence, the offender is charged with involuntary manslaughter. The negligent or reckless killing caused by the use of the vehicle is classified under the involuntary manslaughter as vehicular homicide. From all the incidences described above, none of them cites alcohol consumption as the primary contributor to the causes of the crimes committed. Liquor consumption may have been a contributing factor to the killer’s criminal actions resulting in the homicide but not the main reason. Therefore, the closing of liquor stores in Baltimore would have little impact on crime and aggression as homicide, especially the first-degree murder is usually premeditated, planned, and intentional as well as malice aforethought.
Aggression is considered to be as anger-related feelings against another individual. Sometimes, the feelings of anger may lead to hostility, where the victim may be attacked and even harmed. When aggression is confrontationally resulting in a provocation that ends up in violence, it is regarded as reactive-inexpressive aggression. Besides, assault can take other forms, such as verbal and physical aggression, that is known as reactive-expressive. Others include the proactive-relational attack that can damage human relationships, for example, when one circulates rumors out of malice. However, the primary cause of the aggression is that which matters in this study. From the types of aggression mentioned above, the closing of liquor stores would have minimal impact on the crime rates and assault in Baltimore and other parts of the world. The reason behind aggression towards others is not always linked to alcohol consumption as there are many other contributing factors towards hostility. For instance, some of the causes of aggression include but are not limited to the physical health of the aggressor, mental health, individual traits, family structure, and life experiences. Others may consist of the aggressor’s relationship with others, their surroundings such as school, home, or even work environments, which may provoke feelings of anger leading to violent behavior or readiness to attack or confront others. Also, societal or socioeconomic factors may make an individual exhibit and portray aggression towards others and not necessarily caused by liquor consumption. Hence, there is no need for closing down liquor stores for an aggressor will always attack even without having taken alcohol. Liquor consumption can fuel aggression, but it is not still the leading cause of aggression as there other underlying factors that lead to the eruption of hostility. Thus, it is essential to eliminate the underlying factors influencing crime and assault first before jumping into conclusions that the closing of liquor stores will impact positively on crime rates and aggressive behavior.
According to Trangenstein from the Gillings School of Global Public Health, the closing of liquor stores in Baltimore residential neighborhoods could prevent 22 homicides and even save up to $ 27.5M each year. In my view, residential areas are supposed to be serene environments that give a pleasant conducive environment for bringing up children and as well as relaxing away from the hustle and bustle of routine livelihood. Having liquor stores in residential neighborhoods only adds to the effect that adults need the right place to relax and have recreational leisure from the comfort of their homes. The liquor stores in the residential neighborhoods are usually very disciplined such that they do not play loud music as well as accept under-age individuals. The alcohol stores in the residential areas typically target a particular cluster of people that consume liquor to bring convenience and accessibility to their doorstep. From the journal regarding the implementation of TransForm Baltimore, it states that studies have consistently linked the relationship between the number and concentration of alcohol outlets and violent crime.
Additionally, the research studies compared the potential policies that may influence the crime rates to go high in Baltimore as well as aggression on others. First, they thought of reducing alcohol outlets around the city as a whole. The other option was to close down most of the liquor stores in the residential neighborhoods as they fail to conform to the establishment of alcohol outlets laws. Besides, there was a thought on closing taverns that don’t comply with the city liquor board’s definition of the tavern that means a drinking establishment that rents rooms. There was also the option of closing both the non-conforming liquor stores in the residential areas together with the bars that are not operating in compliance with the city liquor’s board tavern definition.
Closing of all these alcohol stores in the residential neighborhoods would have little effect on crime and aggression as the crime perpetrators will still commit a crime. Those that consume alcohol and go ahead to harm others especially committing homicide, will still go ahead and drink alcohol from other liquor stores away from the residential neighborhoods and even commit the crime or show aggression towards their victims. There is minimal caution one can do to stop a determined person from committing a crime, primarily when the warning revolves around the closing of alcohol outlets.
Typically, the meaning of a liquor store means that the shop sells alcoholic drinks such as wine, beer, and other prepackaged alcoholic drinks usually in bottles and cans intended to be consumed elsewhere but not in the liquor shop. When the wines and spirits shops in the residential neighborhoods are closed, the main objective is to avert and minimize crime and aggression. However, alcohol consumers are still left with many options where they can purchase the alcoholic drinks of their choice, such as bars and pubs. The bars, pubs, restaurants, and other liquor selling joints are licensed to sell alcohol to their customers and even have the liberty to consume the same while at the same premises. So, closing of liquor stores as a way to minimize crime rates and aggression has little effect on the overall goal but damages the economy of the said area more since business goes down with the closing of these alcohol outlets. The fact is that people will still buy alcohol from other places such as bars and even supermarkets that sell liquor and still consume with or without the liquor stores being operational. For instance, vehicular homicide is not always as a result of drunk driving. The description of vehicular murder is described as having resulted from reckless or negligent driving leading to a crime but not alcohol consumption. Therefore, closing of liquor stores as a move to reduce crime and aggression may have very little impact on the same as the results might be insignificant in comparison with other leading causes of homicide in Baltimore city and around the globe.
If drugs and substance abuse were to be taken as one of the leading causes of an increase in crime and aggression, then alcohol would not be the only form of substance abuse that would make up for all the crimes committed, and assault showed towards the victims of crime and hostility. Crime and aggression can be attributed to other drugs abused, such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine, tobacco, and others. According to Galbicsek, forty percent of convicted murderers in the United States of America admitted having used alcohol during the time they committed the crime or before the criminal action. However, the question is about the remaining sixty percent of the convicted murderers. What are the compelling reasons for them to commit homicide when alcohol consumption is left out as one of the contributing factors towards aggressive behavior and crime? Hence, the closing of the alcohol outlets only affects a small percentage of the alcohol-related homicide cases, which is even less than half of the total convicted cases of homicide. Even in the forty percent of the convicted murderers that claimed to have used alcohol before or during the crime, there is no evidence directly linking them to having bought their drink from a liquor store. Thus, the closing of the alcohol outlets is not a sure bet that the crime rates in Baltimore and other cities in the world will drastically reduce as there is no rational correlation.
From Galbicsek’s argument, it states that excessive consumption of liquor is believed to cause impairment on an individual’s judgment capability. Additionally, excessive drinking of alcohol can aggravate the aggressive behaviors of a drunk individual. It also can lower inhibitions making alcohol-related cases and crime rates rise. From his point, my argument is that only excessive consumption of alcohol can be harmful to an individual by impairing their judgment. Hence, does that mean that small amounts of alcohol consumed by a drunk person do not affect their decision? Also, if a person takes little amounts of alcohol, are they likely to exhibit aggressive behavior? From the statement mentioned above at the beginning of this paragraph, it is evident that only excessive consumption of alcohol can lead to crime, such as homicide and hostility against others. Besides, the closing of liquor stores cannot help in managing extreme alcohol consumption behaviors. Only an individual has full control of how much alcohol they can take and how much is excess to their bodies leading to impairment of their judgment and aggressive behaviors exhibition. Thus, the closing of liquor stores cannot make individuals stop taking excessive alcohol amounts and then has little impact on crime and aggression committed and exhibited respectively by such people. My opinion is that only prolonged drinking can lead to an increase in committing violent offences which have little to do with the closing of alcohol outlets.
Baltimore is notoriously known for violent crimes as the average level of the crime rates in the city surpasses the national average crime rate in the United States. However, solely accusing alcohol and liquor consumption as the main contributing factors is unfair and unjust to the alcohol retailers. For instance, gun availability, lack of after school programs in the neighborhood as well as underfunding in the city of Baltimore have increased crime, especially homicide and aggression. Before the local authorities result in closing alcohol retailing shops, they need to have dealt with issues of gun control, sponsoring of after school programs to keep the school-going children safe and away from influences of crime through alcohol abuse. Also, adequate funding of the poor residential place in Baltimore would create job opportunities for many that get involved in criminal activities to cater to their lives. How sufficient financing would reduce the aggression and crime experienced in Baltimore is through improving the economy of the city where everybody can fend for themselves without getting to rob or murder anyone or even assault the other in whatever manner.
Closing liquor stores may be detrimental to the store owners in Baltimore since the shops are their source of income and livelihood. Instead of closing the alcohol outlets, the local authorizes in Baltimore should at least leverage the liquor store ownership. First, they would need to have all the liquor stores in Baltimore registered by the city’s liquor board to have a count of all those that are already operational. The move would assist in making sure that no other liquor outlets without proper authorization from the relevant authorities in Baltimore. Also, it would protect the economy of the city by maintaining the already existing alcohol outlets without closing them.
Additionally, alcohol retailers would retain their jobs where they get their income. That way, they may not need to get involved in criminal actions resulting in crime to support their livelihood. Besides, the liquor store owners may not fall into aggressive behaviors such as violence and hostility towards others, even their family members and strangers, to vent their anger and frustrations on them.
If need be that the worse has come to worst and there is no doubt that liquor stores have to be closed, then it would be wise only to close a few of them and leave some others running. Having fewer liquor stores would safeguard the economy of the city and the interests of the wine shop owners while still keeping crime and aggression at bay. The fewer liquor stores would be mandated to sell alcohol, as usual, to be consumed off-premises. However, they would be mandated with the duty of making sure that they only sell liquor to only individuals that are of drinking age. Failure to adhering to the set regulation would warrant that the liquor shop owner loses their license to operate the business, and it becomes deregistered from the city’s liquor board. Also, the spirit shop owner would be charged with a statutory offence and be convicted for their wrong-doings.
In addition to targeting policies to reduce how much patrons drink, policies, laws, regulations, and practices can be targeted to make alcohol-selling establishments and the neighborhoods that surround them safer, regardless of how much people drink, including the liquor stores. The research studies that suggest that there is a link between alcohol outlets and crime, they ought to provide how law enforcement becomes a principal-agent in efforts to make high crime areas safer. To begin with, law enforcement officers must know the problem neighborhoods, problem bars, and problem drinkers. They must have the ability to interact positively with neighborhood business and other community stakeholders so joint problem-solving can occur. Crime prevention efforts would also benefit from having transportation policy analysts working in tandem with law enforcement or crime analysts when neighborhood changes were set to occur. For instance, in the District, transportation officials have discussed limiting the number of bus stops to increase the efficiency of bus service. These decisions should be made in concert with area planners that are familiar with the landscape of crime and disorder. Essentially, effective problem solvers are those that can forge partnerships across disciplines or policy areas and include community residents who often are the most familiar about the habits of residents and the local geography of problems. This way, the move would not only aim at regulating crime and aggression but also safeguarding the rights of business owners without hurting their income and profits.
Not all alcohol-related crimes and aggressive behaviors are a result of off-premise alcohol outlets. In contrast, on-premise outlets have a significant negative relationship with domestic violence, and this relationship remained stable in the weekend models and weeknight models, as well as during the weekend night models. The negative correlation is driven by restaurants and nightclubs and even bars equally since all these joints sell liquor and have no control over how much a person can consume per sitting or even overnight. Besides, a person may just hope from one club to the other whenever they are kicked out from the previous one for aggression or crime committed there. Hence they are given an ultimatum not to step their foot on the premise again. Therefore, the closing of alcohol outlets would have an insignificant effect on crime and aggression in Baltimore city and the rest of the world.
By examining aggravated assault, it reveals that the density of on-premise outlets is as significant as the off-premise predictor of aggravated assault. In contrast, high frequencies of off-premise outlets (liquor stores, mini-markets, etc.) do not influence attack. Besides, residential neighborhoods that have liquor stores that do not permit the sales of singles might exhibit greater social control, it appears that the contrary findings may indicate that the regions with alcohol stores that do not allow single sales had already reached a tipping point concerning crime and disorder. In other words, even with voluntary agreements banning individual sales, these areas would still have higher levels of violence and unrest in comparison to regions with liquor stores that implemented bans or voluntary agreements. This is because crime is too highly expensive to the liquor business in general and a disadvantage also. Getting these areas to ban single sales to make a difference is much more beneficial to the liquor shop owners that closing them. Furthermore, alcohol stores that do not allow single sales are often found within the same block groups with wine stores that do permit single sales—mostly likely washing out any buffering potential of single sale policies.
In some big cities, reducing alcohol use through limits on the physical availability of alcohol is an attractive policy option. In a quick review of city council legislation in large cities across the U.S., there are several bills or pending legislation designed to limit the number of bars and nightclubs, specify more restrictive distribution policies (such as limiting hours of operation), or even close establishments in high-crime neighborhoods. As policymakers understand, lowering the density of outlets in residential neighborhoods is not easy to accomplish. A reduction in frequency would not necessarily translate into lower crime rates for areas that were already experiencing high rates of crime and aggression disorders. Thus when the regulations concerning the reduction of alcohol outlets are made. They should cut across the board on all liquor selling stores, both on-premise and off-premise stores making is equal and just for all alcohol retailers. Furthermore, global reductions in the number of outlets in a city may not be effective in reducing crime and aggression towards others as these are caused by other underlying factors other than alcoholism. Limiting hours of operations or reducing the amount or types of alcohol sold could have some impact on crime and aggressive behaviors, which is better than closing the liquor stores altogether.
Trangenstien and a team of researchers examined the association between access to 1,204 alcohol outlets in Baltimore and exposure to violent crimes from 2012 to 2016 after accounting for neighborhood factors, including drug arrests, income, and poverty. The report looked at associations between three types of alcohol outlets:
- On-premise outlets like bars and restaurants that only sell alcohol for on-site consumption.
- Off-premise outlets like liquor stores that only sell alcohol for off-site use.
- Taverns that sell alcohol for both on- and off-site consumption.
The study authors suggest that some outlets have a stronger association with assaults or homicides and especially the off-premise ones. This difference has to do with how effectively they can manage their customers. Liquor stores, together with beer and wine stores, tend to have more hurdles for effective management, like solitary working conditions, Plexiglas barriers between staff and patrons, and brief interactions at the point of purchase. On the other hand, bars and restaurants often have several types of teams that more closely interact with patrons while they are drinking, monitor IDs, and even prevent potential offenders from entering the premises in the first place. People who purchase alcohol for off-premise consumption may then drink in public settings near the outlets where place managers are absent. Hence, “A comprehensive approach to reducing violent crime in Baltimore must include policies that restrict or regulate alcohol outlets, particularly those that sell alcohol for off-site consumption,” says Webster. “Reducing the number of off-site alcohol outlets in Baltimore has the potential to lead to fewer homicides and aggravated assaults.” Therefore, reducing the liquor stores to combat crime and aggression may have nothing much as opposed to closing them, for there would be an economic surge in the city of Baltimore.
Alcohol outlets tend to cluster in low-income and minority neighborhoods, and alcohol outlet density zoning would ideally aim to reduce the concentration of liquor outlets in these residential neighborhoods. In Baltimore, bars and taverns are allowed to be opened longer than liquor stores. Therefore, these bars operate as extended-hour liquor sources. Shuttering these bars would lead to just one less murder a year, saving $1.2 million, according to Trangenstein. So the best option would be to reduce the operating hours for the bars by limiting the extended time so that they can close at the same time with the liquor stores in residential zones, in my opinion. That would mean closing at the same time with liquor stores in the city, which would likely prevent more hours of exposure to alcohol for the aggressors and hence reduced homicides in the city each year, if I may assume.
In conclusion, the presence of liquor stores in Baltimore city and particularly its residential neighborhoods, affect crime and aggression. However, the closing of the liquor stores in the town and especially the residential areas would have little impact on the crime rates and aggressive behavior that attacks others to harm them. This is because crime and aggression are not only fueled by alcohol consumption but other factors as well. Hence, eliminating the liquor store without acting upon all the other contributing factors will be insignificant. Factors as unemployment, poverty, lack of after school programs, underfunding, and many others need to be sorted out first before they fight off crime and aggression in Baltimore city. Assault and crimes such as homicide are far much caused by other issues other than the presence of liquor stores and alcoholism alone. The fact is that yes, the problems mentioned above may be correlated to crime and aggression, but that is not the sole reason why such problems exist in society and particularly the Baltimore community. There is no need for closing down liquor stores for an aggressor will always attack even without having taken alcohol. Liquor consumption can fuel aggression, but it is not still the leading cause of aggression as there other underlying factors that lead to the eruption of hostility. Thus, it is essential to eliminate the underlying factors influencing crime and attack first before jumping into conclusions that the closing of liquor stores will impact positively on crime rates and aggressive behavior. Closing liquor stores may be demeaning to the store owners in Baltimore since the shops are their source of income and livelihood. Instead of closing the alcohol outlets, the local authorizes in Baltimore should at least leverage the liquor store ownership. Closing of liquor stores cannot help in managing excessive alcohol consumption behaviors. Only an individual has full control of how much alcohol they can take and how much is excess to their bodies leading to impairment of their judgment and aggressive behaviors exhibition. Thus, the closing of liquor stores cannot make individuals stop taking excessive alcohol amounts and then has little impact on crime and aggression committed and exhibited respectively by such people.