By SHAWN P. O'LEARY
Forum Editor

A graduate of Harvard Medical School, Prothrow--Stith became disenchanted with the "stitch--'em-up" style of health care where those involved in violence were treated so as to return to committing violent acts. Prothrow--Stith sought to encourage a shift in public policy from reactive to preventive measures. She cited the old African proverb of "it takes a village" when claiming that merely raising a child in a loving and healthy family does not adequately preare (s)he for a life free of committing and suffering from violent acts.

Prothrow--Stith advocates including violence prevention under the umbrella of public health, which unlike criminal justice does not focus on the individual, but on the community, level. In doing so, an individual act of crime is not directly investigated, but a public health official would ask what was the rate, location and subsequent risk factors of such crimes. This would be used in order to develop public policy designed to prevent such acts, as opposed to merely reacting to them.

Prothrow-Stith pointed to the unwillingness to fund preventive programs as one of the leading obstacles to her cause. She cited an example wherein a boy denied a $6,000 grant for after school care that would prevent him from being harmed, could be shot on the street with the subsequent medical costs possibly exceeding $80,000. The former was an example of preventative policy, the latter of reactionary.

Using homicide statistics as an example of the discrepancy between the United States and other developed nations, Prothrow--Stith showed that the U.S. homicide rate was more than 4.5 times higher than the next highest developed nation. This accounts for 37 homicides per 100,000 youths in 1991.

Also disturbing are the figures indicating that sexual assault, gang fights and other felonies accounted for only 20% of the violent acts. The other 80% was comprised of acts of violence committed by those we know.

This inability to get along is due in large part to the popularization of violence in U.S. culture, especially among children. Prothrow--Stith illustrated that many of the violent acts are attempts by our children to get our attention, money and resources.

Violence, she believes, is also due to a combination of five major factors: chronic poverty, availability of gunse (especially handguns), witnessing or being the victim of crim, drugs and alchohol and social/cultureal values.

Her plan of action for addressing chronic violence is like how a public health official would address thwarting teenage smoking. The primary course of action would include changing public perceptions, norms and attitudes towards violence by changing the way violence is portrayed via the media, television and sporting events. The glamorization of such vioence could also be prevented by addressing children at a young age through in--school programs and public service announcements.

Secondary measures would include trying to `reel--in' the kids at risk who are typically absent from school, often suspended and have already had a few brushes with the law. Prothrow--Stith believes that these kids are the ones who are crying out for our attention, money and resources more than ever.

The tertiary measures would include, she seemed reluctant to say, jailing of the serious offenders. This appears least desireable, in her view, because as a society we seem unwilling to say that we will give a troubled child a $2,000 summer job but we are willing to incarcerate that child at a rough cost of $35,000 a year. Prothrow--Stith concluded her remarks with a request for support of preventitive public policy.