Maybe we need a pre-parenting test to safeguard our children

Today's newspaper contained an article about a three-year
old from Bakerfield, California, who apparently found a loaded gun
under her parent's bed and accidentally shot and killed her
two year old brother. According to Bakersfield police
Sgt Greg Terry says the girl apparently found a .45 calibre
semi-automatic handgun under her parents' bed on Wednesday
afternoon and accidentally shot her brother.

The mother was in another room in the apartment.

The threat of prison which will quite often result does not seem
to be sufficient. The possibility of losing a child does not seem
to be sufficient. So what must we do to keep children safely
away from the homes of such irresponsible adults?

If this were an isolated incident that had not happened before,
public reaction might be different. But the fact remains that
children are put in danger when irresponsible adults have
both children and guns that are stored fully loaded and easily
found.

We need to find a way before another innocent child is buried.

Do you have any idea of something that might prevent these
needless deaths?

Testing to Predict Gang Membership?

An article in today's Wall Street Journal relates that the city is involved

in testing 10-15 year-olds to predict future gang membership as part

of its proactive gang-prevention program. This 70-question multiple choice

test was devised by a social psychologist.

Its validity and whether there is a reduction in gang activity will not be

known for a number of years. What is not explained is the group who

gets to take the tests. Looking at the test itself , it appears to be given upon

referral by someone based on the box at the top that must be checked.

California is facing an enormous shortfall in its budget that is sure to 

impact the city of Los Angeles. One cannot help but ask if this is the

best use of limited funds. 

Is This Sending the Wrong Message to Students?

In 2007 following a Halloween party at a local club 

attended by students of Morehouse College (located in

Atlanta,  Joshua Brandon Norris was thrown out of 

the club for causing  trouble (specifics not stated in the 

CNN report.) 

Shortly thereafter Norris and Rashad Johnson had 

an altercation in the parking lot and from inside

his car, Norris shot Johnson three times.

Here is the part that is hard to fathom. Norris 

pleaded no contest to aggravated assault with 

a deadly weapon (a serious felony that carried 

a long period of incarceration.) At the 

recommendation of the prosecutor who 

is no longer in office, the judge sentenced him

to 6-years of probation, $1000 fine, and 

240 hours of community service. Included in the

terms of the plea was a requirement that Norris

remain in college and get his degree.

This past week-end Joshua Brandon Norris sat with 

his fellow graduates and received his diploma 

while his victim, who was also a Morehouse student, lives in

California with his mother and is not said to be in college.

Is it any wonder that citizens question the workings 

of the criminal justice system?

Prosecutors have ultimate discretion in when and 

whether to offer a plea agreement. They also have 

total discretion in whether or not to bring a case 

to trial and what evidence to offer the jury. This 

discretion has led to many instances of injustice 

including nearly all of the exonerations that the 

Innocent Project has worked to achieve.

As citizens we need to begin to question whether 

our laws need to change so that knowingly ignoring 

exculpatory evidence or allowing unreliable 

testimony at a trial carries a severe penalty for the 

prosecutor. 

Today there are no sanctions beyond a few words 

in a rare appellate decision that points to prosecutorial 

misconduct.

Let's see if bringing the Norris case into the spotlight 

will result in any changes in the system itself. Texas 

restricts the ability of a jury to give a probated sentence 

for certain offenses. The time has come for the law 

to restrict the ability of the prosecutor to offer 

probation for these same offenses without an open record reason.

A Unique Court with Visible Results

 Broken Windows theory states that when small quality of life 

type offenses are ignored, the offenders move on to commit 

other and usually more serious offenses.

Many cities, including New York, concentrated efforts 

to arrest these offenders and there was a resultant lower crime 

rate. No one can say with certainty that a specific percentage 

of the lower crime rate was the direct result of the quality of life

arrests because crime rates have been going down in other 

places as well. What can be shown is that when cities do 

consider Broken Windows theory in allocation of resources, 

there is a correllating lower crime rate.

Philadelphia has taken the concept of Broken Windows theory 

to another level which is a win/win situation. In bad economic 

times, cities are trying to lower the jail population, not add 

even more offenders. Enter a unique court whose premise 

should make sense to any who hear of it.

Started in 1996 the court moves from one policing area to 

another and deals with the various and sundry crimes that 

debase a neighborhood's overall quality of life, such as drinking, 

loitering, and the ever-popular doing both on a stoop other than 

your own.

Since most offenders have no money to pay fines, the sentence 

is community service but specifically in the same area where 

the offense occurred. Offenders  do time with service in precisely 

the place where they originally disturbed the peace. 

Instead of jail, offenders will pick up parks, rec centers and churches. 

This is an idea that should be considered by cities and towns across

the country. What a great way to clean up our neighborhoods while

requiring those who are responsible for debasing them to take

responsibility for their actions.

You can read the entire article here.

If you think this is a good idea, consider suggesting it to your

city council.

New Insights to Help Police Distinguish Liars

A recent article talks about new research that is being done to assist

police in sorting out truthful and deceitful information provided by

individuals. 

Research indicates that truth tellers add more details while those who

are deceitful tend to stick to the script that they provide. 

Many of the former "clues" that police relied upon are in fact of no

value. There is little difference in body actions or eye contact or

much else physiologically between those who tell the truth and others.

There will undoubtedly be a group of officers who will scoff at the

research and continue to use their own yardsticks. These yardsticks

have led to innocents becoming defendants and even sentenced

because the police never gave sufficient attention to details that

were contrary to the actual evidence -- coroner says trajectory

of weapon indicates left-handed individual but suspect is 

right-handed would be an obvious example. 

Another interesting result was the value of a conversational approach

as opposed to the confrontational one suspects usually undergo.

Will the Economy lead to Decriminalization of Some Offenses

The New York Times reports that prosecutors across the nation are facing budget cuts and choosing not to prosecute certain offenses because of the economics of a trial. 

Questions come to mind immediately: 

Will Broken Windows Theory be proven when quality of life offenses 

no longer lead to arrests and sentencing?

Will decriminalization of some drug offenses result?

Will the fear of crime increase?

Cities across the country are receiving new funds to hire more police. 

More police logically mean more arrests. Prosecutor says they 

will limit prosecutions. 

What will happen to police morale and effectiveness when the 

hard work of investigation is ignored by the office of the prosecutor?

Will this lead to increased negative feelings towards the criminal

 justice system?

What impact will this have on the minority communities in our country?

As the economy slides and tax receipts are lower, cities, counties, and states

must find ways to cut their expenses. We have been spending huge amounts on

prison building in recent years. Citizens are unwilling to see programs that

impact education and children chopped while the corrections

budget continues to swallow a large share of the  available money.

We, as a society, need to reconsider alternatives to prison for 

low-risk offenders. Restorative justice, alternative courts like 

juvenile and drug court, rehabilitation programs in the community, 

and various forms of community service have all

shown good results for first-time, non-violent, low-level offenders. 

We will need to provide more funding to the probation and parole 

agencies, but the cost of prosecuting and then incarcerating 

this group of offenders is huge in comparison and increases 

the recidivism rate since prisons provide an

education on how to do a better job of being a criminal.

It is time that we look at how the Scandanavians handle offenders; 

they have a very low incarceration rate and focus on rehabilitation. 

Their crime rate is also lower than ours.

A huge percentage of female offenders are serving time 

for non-violent drug  offenses. Most of them are mothers 

and society must underwrite the cost of providing for

 these children who will enter adulthood with emotional 

scars caused by a mother in prison. 

Does this really make sense?

He killed his father and 27 years later is out of prison

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-prison-release-sw-zone-06may06,0,6826364.story

There is a video with the former prisoner and his views of recidivism; It is midway down the page with the article and there is a 15 second ad you see first.

chicagotribune.com

Back to a world he barely knows

Convicted in his father's murder at age 17, Paul Komyatti Jr. is being released

By Erika Slife

TRIBUNE REPORTER

May 6, 2009

INDIANAPOLIS -- With his large frame hunched over a desk, Paul Komyatti Jr. excitedly flips through an old photo album, pointing out the different pictures of him over the last three decades. There's one of his cat that he raised from a kitten. Another is with an old girlfriend. And there's a shot of him with his buddies, striking a macho pose.

What's unusual is that every photo was taken from the same place: prison.

Komyatti was sent into the Indiana correctional system as a teenager in 1983. Next week, he's scheduled to emerge as a free man at age 44. There will be no family to greet him as he takes his first steps back into society. They were all convicted for their roles in the 1983 murder of Komyatti's father, Paul Sr., who was stabbed and decapitated as he slept in his Hammond home.

Komyatti was 17 the night he held his dad's legs down while his brother-in-law stabbed him more than 30 times with a fishing knife. Komyatti was sentenced to 100 years in prison -- 55 years for murder and 45 years for conspiracy, to be served concurrently. Good behavior and education credits are leading to his early release.

Now 6 foot 5, and weighing 235 pounds, Komyatti is a lifetime away from who he was then. "Most of my memories are from behind four walls," said Komyatti in an interview with the Tribune. "Prison is like an entirely different world. It's like going to a foreign country where I do speak the language, but I have to assimilate into the culture."

He's starting to get his affairs in order. Since being moved to a transitional work-release center in September, he has signed a lease for an apartment and obtained a driver's permit and library card.

But the society he'll rejoin barely resembles the one he left. Komyatti barely knows how to use a cell phone, and recently tried the Internet for the first time. He literally had to relearn how to ride a bike.

While in prison, Komyatti earned a bachelor's degree in history from Ball State University, with honors, and associate degrees in criminal justice and general studies. He paid tuition through an education program offered to the correctional system.

He has a job in the retail sector and hopes to land a second job before summer, but he's wary about pursuing a corporate career. "They don't know me," he said. "They know one particular act."

In 1983, Komyatti was a senior at Morton High School. He earned good grades, played football and planned on going into the Air Force after graduation.

But he had a secret. His family was planning to murder his father.

According to court records, Paul Sr. "was a strict and domineering father and husband" and "on occasion drank to excess and was loud and violent." Komyatti said he was beaten so badly by his father that as a child he stuttered. His mother, he said, would take him and run away to her sister's home. But his father would always come after them, Komyatti said.

"There were occasions where he would stick a gun next to my head and he'd say he'd blow my head off if she didn't come home," he said.

For weeks, Paul Jr., his mother, sister and brother-in-law tried poisoning him. But when that failed, they hatched a new plan. As Paul Sr. slept, Komyatti and his brother-in-law crept into his room to render him unconscious with ether and inject air into his veins, making his death look like a heart attack. But during the assault, Paul Sr. woke up -- reportedly yelling, "Son, son, can't we work something out?" -- as his daughter shut the door to muffle the cries, according to court records.

Tom Vanes, a former Lake County, Ind., prosecutor, remembers that he saw no remorse from family members, including Komyatti, during the initial weeks of the investigation. 

"There was not the reaction you would expect to see for a kid who helped bury his dad. No love, no remorse, no empathy, no hesitation."

Komyatti admits there was no love for his father, but he said that doesn't excuse or justify what they did. "I didn't think there was any other options," he said. 

When he first got to prison, he was rebellious and quickly racked up violations. He tried to escape. When he was 25 he was sent to the Westville Correctional Facility, the state's most notorious prison, where he stayed on and off for the next four years.

But it was at the most secure facility where he bought a book about prisoners' rights. Soon, he was protesting prison conditions and the treatment of inmates. He went on hunger strikes and filed lawsuits. But then in 1995, it dawned on him: "I might get out one day." So he set out on a new path toward religion and education. Komyatti isn't sure what he's looking forward to most upon his release.

"I look forward to playing some handball. Maybe going to the park. I might just go over to White River and jump in the river."

Gerald Waite, an anthropology professor at Ball State, teaches inmates at the prison and has known Komyatti for 12 years.

"He's probably one of my favorite students. He's extremely capable, extremely versatile, extremely smart and charismatic. ... I think he'll adapt, but it will really test his patience."

Based on statistics, Komyatti has a good shot of never going back to jail. According to a 2004 study by The Sentencing Project, four out of five people sentenced from "a number of years" to life in prison are not rearrested when released.

"Crime is a young persons' pursuit; we know that people age out of crime," said Ryan King, a policy analyst.

Komyatti doesn't spend time thinking about what he did as a young man, but rather what he can accomplish as a free man.

"You might say I wish I had done this, or wish I had done that, or I wish I hadn't done this," he said. "At the same time, I don't dwell on them because there's nothing I can do about it. I learned from my past. You learn from your past, you don't repeat it."

eslife@tribune.com

Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

Court will Consider Life with no parole for teens

Article as it appeared in NY Times

In deciding that young people could not be put to death for crimes committed before the age of majority, many Justices' reasoning could be applied in this case as well.

May 5, 2009

Justices Agree to Take Up Sentencing for Young Offenders

By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider whether the reasoning that led it to strike down the death penalty for juvenile offenders four years ago should also apply to sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

The court accepted two cases on the issue, both from Florida and neither involving a killing. In one, Joe Sullivan was sentenced to life without the possibility of release for raping a 72-year-old woman in 1989, when he was 13. In the other, Terrance Graham received the same sentence for participating in a home invasion robbery in 2004, when he was 17 and on probation for other crimes.

In the majority opinion in the death penalty case, Roper v. Simmons, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that teenagers were immature, unformed, irresponsible and susceptible to negative influences, including peer pressure.

“Even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile,” Justice Kennedy concluded, is not “evidence of irretrievably depraved character.”

Outside the context of the death penalty, however, the Supreme Court has not shown much interest in cases from prisoners claiming that the sentences they received were too harsh. But Douglas A. Berman, an authority on sentencing law at Ohio State University, said the factors cited by Justice Kennedy concerning juveniles might well apply in noncapital cases.

“The principles driving Roper,” Professor Berman said, “would seem to suggest that its impact does not stop at the execution chamber.”

The United States is alone in the world in making routine use of life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders. Human rights groups say more than 2,000 prisoners in the United States are serving such sentences for crimes they committed when they were 17 or younger. A vast majority of those crimes involved a killing by the defendant or an accomplice.

At the argument of the Roper case in 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia said the rationales offered against the juvenile death penalty applied just as forcefully to sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

“I don’t see where there’s a logical line,” said Justice Scalia, who voted in dissent to retain the juvenile death penalty.

But Justice Kennedy wrote that life sentences would continue to deter young criminals after the death penalty became unavailable.

“The punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person.”

Lawyers for the two Florida inmates cited international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits sentences of life without parole for juveniles. Justice Kennedy’s invoking foreign and international law in the Roper decision was controversial, and the new cases will reopen the question of how much attention the Supreme Court should pay to international law.

Bryan S. Gowdy, a lawyer for Mr. Graham, said in an interview that his client had never been convicted of the robbery that sent him to prison for the rest of his life. Though evidence was presented concerning the robbery, the trial judge found only that Mr. Graham had violated the terms of his probation after an earlier conviction for armed burglary and attempted armed robbery when he was 16.

“When our children make mistakes, are we going to lock them up and throw away the key for life?” Mr. Gowdy said. “If you follow the rationale of Roper, that’s not appropriate.”

In rejecting a challenge to Mr. Graham’s sentence last year, a Florida appeals court acknowledged that “a true life sentence is typically reserved for juveniles guilty of more heinous crimes such as homicide.” But the court added that Mr. Graham “rejected his second chance” in violating the terms of his probation “and chose to continue committing crimes at an escalating pace.”

A ruling in favor of the prisoners in the two cases — Graham v. Florida, No. 08-7412, and Sullivan v. Florida, No. 08-7621 — could be quite narrow. The Supreme Court may leave for another day, for instance, the question of how murders committed by juveniles may be punished.

Last year, drawing a similar distinction, the court said in Kennedy v. Louisiana that crimes against individuals that do not involve killing, including the rape of a child by an adult, cannot be punished by death.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company