Thursday, October 29, 2009

No obligation to call 911

The gang rape of a 15-year old outside a school
after a homecoming event is horrific enough
without the added fact that 20 witnesses stood
by and not only did nothing to intervene but
did not even contact 911.

Should we even need a law? Is this lack of
action symbolic of the current standards
of conduct among today's youth or an
aberration?

Witness to an assault: Must you report it?

By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY

Police investigating the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl

outside a school dance are finding that a California law

may make it impossible to prosecute as many as 20 people

who saw the rape and did nothing.

A state statute requires that people must report to police

any information they have about the sexual assault of children

under the age of 14. There is no law requiring people do

the same for victims over that age.

"The fact that our victim missed that age by a very short time …"

said Richmond Police Lt. Mark Gagan. "It's just very offensive

that there's no statute we can use to show that we condemn

their behavior."

Gagan said the assault began inside a homecoming dance

Saturday night at Richmond High School. He said the girl

was taken to a dark, remote corner on the campus and

raped by as many as 10 males.

Gagan said Wednesday that police have arrested five males —

between the ages of 15 and 21— and charged four of them

with rape and enhancements that they acted in concert,

which could make them eligible for life in prison.

Gagan said he expected more arrests this week.

The attack put this industrial suburb of San Francisco

in the national spotlight. Home to numerous refineries

and loading docks, Richmond was ranked as the ninth

most dangerous city in the USA in 2008, according to

Morgan Quitno Press, a research company that

tracks criminal data.

Gagan said up to 20 onlookers came and went

but that no one called police until a woman

overheard two witnesses talking about the attack

and she reported it.

The case drew comparisons to other high-profile cases where groups of people fail to report heinous crimes, a phenomenon dubbed the "bystander effect." According to the theory, the likelihood that a witness reaches out for help decreases as the number of witnesses increase.

One notorious example of the phenomenon took place

in Queens, N.Y., in 1964, when Kitty Genovese was

attacked in the courtyard of an apartment complex.

Numerous residents heard or saw portions of the attack

and did nothing, though some details have been disputed.

Studies have found that people in such situations either

think someone else has called police, fear getting involved,

or fail to help for other reasons.

David Hyman, a University of Illinois law professor who has

studied the bystander effect, said the biggest misconception

about such situations is that they happen often.

Hyman studied decades worth of data and found that

no more than two people die each year because of a

failure to attempt a rescue — either of a victim of a crime

or of a natural occurrence, like drowning. By comparison,

Americans perform over 1,000 "non-risky" and about

260 "risky" rescue attempts each year.

"We do have a problem: People too often get involved

in circumstances that place the life of the rescuer at

risk," he said.

However, in the Richmond case, Hyman said there

was no doubt that someone should have called

police immediately.

Eugene Volokh, a University of California-Los Angeles

law professor, said the reaction to crimes involving

disinterested bystanders is a call for a law requiring

witnesses to report crimes.

He said those kinds of laws only exist in a handful

of states and for good reason. In the case of the

California law, the crime carries a maximum six

months in prison.

Volokh said making the failure to report a crime a

crime itself can seriously undermine the intent of the law.

Many times people don't report a crime until some

time has passed — maybe their guilt convinces them

to call police, maybe they don't think a crime is occurring

but later see a call from police for information. Those

people may not come forward if doing so would be

admitting to a crime.

"This makes it much less likely that they will testify later

or that they'll talk to police later," Volokh found.

Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor who studies

the moral psychology of juveniles, believes the bystander

effect should not even apply to the Richmond gang rape.

"In this context, when you're talking about a crime this horrific,

and you're talking about a group of adolescents watching,

there's much more serious pathology going on that

can't be explained by, 'Someone else is going to call

for help,' " Arenella said.

http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Prosecutors Want Student Notes

There is an article in the New York Times
that reports on a subpoena issued by the
Prosecutor's Office directed at the students
who participate in the Medill Innocence
Project at Northwestern University.

Unlike most of the Innocence Projects
involving students which are involved
with law schools and in some cases are
criminal justice or pre-law students,
Northwestern's project is a Journalism class.

Northwestern is focusing its refusal to
agree to requests based on the 1st Amendment
and freedom of the press.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Should parole offender be required to stay away from church

The first amendment freedom of religion conflicts, some say,
with restrictions placed on sex offenders on parole. Both
sides of this issue can offer arguments that stand up under
scrutiny, so it is truly a case of you decide, until the Court
makes a final decision, if they do.

Should Sex Offenders Be Barred from Church?

By Bonnie Rochman

North Carolina is a proud member of the so-called

Bible Belt of states that take their religion seriously.

So some eyebrows were raised when James Nichols

was arrested for attending church.

His offense? Nichols, a convicted sex offender,

had chosen to worship at a church that has a nursery

where kids play while their parents pray. Now Nichols, 31,

who only recently got out of prison, is fighting back,

challenging the legality of a new law that took effect

in December prohibiting registered sex offenders from

coming within 300 ft. — nearly a football field's length —

of any facility devoted to the use, care or supervision

of minors.

As more states have adopted laws regulating where sex

offenders can go, it was only a matter of time before

the noble goal of protecting children butted heads

with the sacrosanct First Amendment right to worship

where and when you choose. Which takes precedence?

"This law makes it illegal to do things that are not wrong,

like go to church," says Glen Gerding, Nichols' attorney.

"When does the state stop interfering with a

church's business? Will pastors be charged as an

accessory for letting a known sex offender

sit in a front-row pew and worship?"

Most states restrict sex offenders' movements

in some way; North Carolina's law is hardly

the strictest. In Georgia, registered sex offenders

can't live or work within 1,000 ft. of places

including schools, churches and child-care centers.

Courts there have waded into questions of religion,

ruling in favor of the right of offenders to partake

in activities including volunteering in a church kitchen,

attending adult Sunday School and singing in a church choir.

On behalf of Georgia's 16,000 registered sex offenders,

the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights

has sued the state over its residency and employment

restrictions, including the ban on faith-based

volunteering. "There are serious constitutional

problems in banning someone from going to church,

not to mention this runs counter to the church's

mission of inclusion, hospitality and redemption,"

says Sara Totonchi, the center's associate director.

As soon as North Carolina's law went into effect in

December, Katy Parker, legal director for the state's

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter,

started fielding calls. Offenders wanted to know

if the law prevented them from going to church;

pastors worried it would keep worshippers away.

Parker says the law was so vague that she couldn't

offer advice, but she did put out the word to

defense attorneys that should they wind up

representing someone accused of breaking the law,

the ACLU wanted to hear about it. Nichols' March

apprehension is one of two religion-based arrests

that Parker is aware of.

"It's unbelievable that the N.C. state legislature and

the people of North Carolina would not want

someone to go to church for spiritual reasons

and for rehabilitative reasons," says Parker.

But others think the ACLU is missing the point.

The premise of the law is sound, says Laurence Tribe,

a constitutional-law expert at Harvard. "If the moment

you enter a church you don a cloak of immunity

from the rule of law, then churches would become

sanctuaries for crime," says Tribe.

Nichols, who was convicted of indecent liberties

with a teenage girl (he was 20 at the time)

and attempted second-degree rape, had prayed

at Moncure Baptist Church in Moncure, N.C.,

where he was living, for several months before

the police paid attention. Oddly enough,

Nichols inadvertently outed himself, calling

the cops about a fellow congregant — another offender —

whom he witnessed fondling a 12-year-old girl.

"I thought I was doing the right thing, and

they hit me with charges," he says.

But he wasn't about to give up on God.

Nichols credits religion with keeping him out

of trouble. He had attended church sporadically

before he went to prison; now he goes twice a day

and three times on Sundays. "Church helps me

to not live my old ways," says Nichols, who

currently attends New Life Mission Church in

Fayetteville, N.C., a hard-knock place that

caters to ex-cons, former drug dealers and alcoholics.

Pastor Grace Kim welcomed Nichols to her church,

which has no nursery on site and no children

who attend the twice-daily services. "We want

to try to give everyone a chance to rehabilitate,

no matter their background."

Only time — and judges' decisions — will determine

whether the new law bars offenders from attending

any church (where children might attend) or

just those with child-care facilities. What is

clear is that those who hammered out the

small print of the legislation are sticking by it.

David Hoyle, the state senator who sponsored the bill,

says it took two years to pass, partly because

legal advisers took care to word it to withstand

legal challenges.

The law is named for Jessica Lunsford, the Florida

girl who was kidnapped and killed in 2005 by

a convicted sex offender. Lunsford was born in

Hoyle's district and attended school in the

tiny town of Dallas, where Hoyle lives. He still talks

to her father regularly; her cousin will serve as a

senate page for Hoyle next year.

"I got e-mails calling me the anti-Christ and saying

I'm going to hell, but we want to make the law

just as strong as we can," says Hoyle. "We feel

it is a good law. When a person takes advantage

of a child, I don't worry about their

constitutional rights."

Read "A Move to Register Sex Offenders Globally."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929736,00.html

Private Prisons for Death Row Inmates Possible

I personally think this is a poor idea with too
many negative possible problems, but you
may have a different view.


The New York Times
October 24, 2009

Arizona May Put State Prisons in Private Hands

FLORENCE, Ariz. —

One of the newest residents on Arizona’s death row,

a convicted serial killer named Dale Hausner,

poked his head up from his television to look at

several visitors strolling by, each of whom wore

face masks and vests to protect against the sharp

homemade objects that often are propelled from

the cells of the condemned.

It is a dangerous place to patrol, and Arizona spends

$4.7 million each year to house inmates like Mr. Hausner

in a super-maximum-security prison. But in a first

in the criminal justice world, the state’s death row

inmates could become the responsibility of a private company.

State officials will soon seek bids from private companies

for 9 of the state’s 10 prison complexes that house roughly

40,000 inmates, including the 127 here on death row.

It is the first effort by a state to put its entire prison

system under private control.

The privatization effort, both in its breadth and its financial goals,

demonstrates what states around the country — broke,

desperate and often overburdened with prisoners and

their associated costs — are willing to do to balance the books.

Arizona officials hope the effort will put a $100 million

dent in the state’s roughly $2 billion budget shortfall.

“Let’s not kid ourselves,” said State Representative Andy Biggs,

a Republican who supports private prisons.

“If we were not in this economic environment,

I don’t think we’d be talking about this with the

same sense of urgency.”

Private prison companies generally build facilities for a state,

then charge them per prisoner to run them.

But under the Arizona legislation, a vendor would pay $100 million

up front to operate one or more prison complexes.

Assuming the company could operate the prisons more cheaply

or efficiently than the state, any savings would be equally divided

between the state and the private firm.

The privatization move has raised questions — including

among some people who work for private prison companies —

about the private sector’s ability to handle the state’s most

hardened criminals. While executions would still be performed

by the state, officials said, the Department of Corrections

would relinquish all other day-to-day operations to the

private operator and pay a per-diem fee for each prisoner.

“I would not want to be the warden of death row,” said Todd Thomas,

the warden of a prison in Eloy, Ariz., run by the

Corrections Corporation of America. The company,

the country’s largest private prison operator, has six prisons

in Arizona with inmates from other states.

“That’s not to say we couldn’t,” Mr. Thomas said.

“But the liability is too great. I don’t think any private

entity would ever want to do that.”

James Austin, a co-author of a Department of Justice

study in 2001 on prison privatization and president

of the JFA Institute, a corrections consulting firm,

said private companies tended to oversee minimum- and

medium-security inmates and had little experience

with the most dangerous prisoners.

“As for death row,” Mr. Austin said, “it is a very visible entity,

and if something bad happens there, you will have a

pretty big news story for the Legislature and governor to explain.”

Arizona is no stranger to private prisons or, for that matter,

aggressive privatization efforts (recently, the state put

up for sale several government buildings housing executive

branch offices in Phoenix). Nearly 30 percent of the state’s

prisoners are being held in prisons operated by private

companies outside the state’s 10 complexes.

In addition, other states, including Alaska and Hawaii,

have contracts with private companies like

Corrections Corporation of America to house their prisoners in Arizona.

For advocates of prison privatization, the push here breathes

a bit of life into a movement that has been on the decline

across the country as cost savings from prison privatizations

have often failed to materialize, corrections officers unions

have resisted the efforts and high-profile problems in

privately run facilities have drawn unwanted publicity

“We have private prisons in Arizona already, and we are

very happy with the performance and the savings we get

from them,” said Representative John Kavanagh, a

Republican who is chairman of the House Appropriations

Committee and an architect of the new legislation authorizing

the privatization. “I think that they are the future of

corrections in Arizona.”

Under the legislation, any bidder would have to take

an entire complex — many of them mazes of multiple

levels of security risks and complexity — and would not

be permitted to pick off the cheapest or easiest

buildings and inmates. The state also wants to

privatize prisoners’ medical care.

Louise Grant, a spokeswoman for Corrections Corporation of America,

said the high-security prisoners would be well within the

company’s management capabilities. “We expect we will

be there to make a proposal to the state” for at

least some of its complexes up for bid, Ms. Grant said.

In pure financial terms, it is not clear how well the

state would make out with the privatization.

The 2001 study for the Department of Justice found

that private prisons saved most states little money

(there has been no equivalent study since). Indeed,

many states, struggling to keep up with the cost of corrections,

have closed prisons when possible, and sought changes in

sentencing to reduce crowding in the last two years.

As tough sentencing laws and the ensuing increase in

prisoners began to press on state resources in the 1980s,

private prison companies attracted some states with

promises of lower costs. The private prison boom lasted

into the 1990s. Throughout the years, there have been

high-profile riots, escapes and other violent incidents.

The companies also do not generally provide the same wages

and benefits as states, which has resulted in resistance

from unions and concerns that the private prisons attract

less-qualified workers.

Then the federal government stepped in, with a

surge of new immigrant prisoners, and began to

contract with the private companies. The number

of federal prisoners in private prisons in the

United States has more than doubled, to 32,712 in 2008

from 15,524 in 2000. The number of state prisoners in

privately run prisons has increased to 93,500 from

75,000 in that time.

With bad economic times again driving many decisions

about state resources, other states are sure to watch

Arizona’s experiment closely.

“There simply isn’t the money to keep these people

incarcerated, and the alternative is to free many of

them or lower cost,” said Ron Utt, a senior research

fellow for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group

whose work for privatization was cited by one Arizona lawmaker.


Victims Rights Aided by Technology

This posting raises concerns about the safety of the victims. There are all too
many cases of databases' being compromised or hacked into and
handing victims identification to offenders or their compatriots does
not seem like a wise move.

Like so many things that look great on paper, I can't help but
wonder if there will be negative unintended consequences
with this.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has this press release:

In its effort to keep crime victims informed, the Office of Victim and Survivor Rights
with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
is asking crime victims to register for a new automated system that will
soon provide real-time information about the custody status of their offenders....

The new statewide automated Victim Information and Notification
Everyday (VINE) system will provide a 24-hour service and will give
registered victims an instant notice by phone or email about their
offender's whereabouts....

The automated system will also inform victims and next-of-kin of when
their offender is scheduled for a parole board hearing if they are
serving a life term....

California Penal Code and the addition of Marsy's Law requires CDCR
to notify witnesses, victims and next of kin if a violent offender is
released, escapes, dies, or is up for parole.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Make Your Writing Assignment More Effective

While not a criminal justice topic, per se, this
was too good a resource not to share with
you.

The Writing Center at Harvard University

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/resources.html

The Writing Center at Harvard University is perhaps the

oldest formal writing center at an American university,

and their complementary website presents a valuable trove

of instructional handouts for writers young and old.

On this page, visitors will find over a dozen helpful

handouts with titles such as "How to Read an Assignment",

"Essay Structure", "Developing a Thesis", "Summary", and

"Revising the Draft


Each piece is written in clear prose, and the advice offered is

sound and practical. Also, visitors should note that the site

also includes a link to Harvard's guide to citation and

integration of sources, "Writing with Sources", and a selection of

links to other related writing style guides.

Clusters of Sex offenders where child killed

Most people have a sense that so long as sex offenders
are registered police are keeping a watch. Two main
factors are often overlooked: the list contains both
predators and those whose offense is much less serious;
when someone required to register moves, that person
may or may not register. Those who register and follow
all the rules tend to be the ones who want to become
law abiding and being on the registry often works against
their finding jobs. Maybe we need to rethink who we
want to register and for what type of offenses. The current
system didn't protect this child or some unfortunate
others.

Dense Population of Sex

Offenders in Fla. Case Is

Alarmingly Typical

Density of Offenders Near Home of Somer

Thompson, 7, Missing Since Monday, Is Not Unusual

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN

Oct. 21, 2009—

There are so many sex offenders living within blocks of

where 7-year-old Somer Thompson vanished Monday

that when their homes are represented by pins on a

digital map they create a cluster so thick it overlaps in places.

Law enforcement officials have interviewed at least 75 registered

sex offenders who live within a 5-mile radius of the second

grader's home on Orange Park, Fla., but state officials say

there are some 161 convicted offenders in that area.

Experts say despite what appears to be an extraordinary concentration,

the number of local offenders is actually quite typical for an area

so close to a major city. Most people, they say, have no idea

just how many sex offenders are living in their neighborhood.

"In spite of appearing it to be a lot, that's about average,"

said Ron Book, a Florida lawyer who lobbies for tougher

sex-offender legislation. "Some areas have hundreds of offenders."

According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement,

which maintains the state's sex offender registry, there are some

82 sex offenders living with a 3-mile radius of Somer's home in

Orange Park, a suburb of Jacksonville, and 161 registered

offenders within a 5 mile radius.

By contrast there are 10 McDonald's restaurants in the same 5 mile radius.

State officials would not comment on whether they believed 161 offenders

in the area was a high or moderate density.

But Professor David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes against Children

Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, agreed that

161 sex offenders in a 5-mile area that included parts of a major

city is not necessarily a high density.

"Different states have different policies about what level of

sex offenders are required to register. You can have over

1,000 offenders in an urban area without much difficulty.

It sounds scary to people, but many states have registration

regimes that include people who are not all that dangerous," he said.

The 5-mile radius around Somer's home in 1700 block of Horton Dr.

in Orange Park includes parts of the city of Jacksonville,

the largest and most populous city in Florida.

There are some 53,201 registered sex offenders in the entire

state of Florida. Of those, 318 live in Clay County, where

Orange Park is located and an additional 1,671 live in Duvall County,

where Jacksonville is located.

The ratio of residents to sex offenders in Jacksonville is estimated at 486 to 1.

Of the 161 offenders in the area, 16 are classified as predators,

which generally means the offender was convicted of a first-degree

felony sex offense  many of which involve the molestation of children.

Laws about where sex offenders are allowed to live vary from

county to county and depend on the severity and nature of the

crime for which the criminal was convicted.

Book said sex offenders often cluster together in part because

of laws that restrict the places in which they can live.

Though high concentrations of offenders appear to be problematic,

high densities actually help police.

"Some laws have forced clustering. While that appears to have a

downside, some say it's a good thing from a law enforcement

prospective. If you have clustering its easier for parole,

probation and police officials to keep track of them," he said.

Some offenders are not permitted to live within 1,000 feet

of a school or are banned from activities like distributing candy

on Halloween, said Mike Morrison spokesman for the Florida

Department of Law Enforcement.

Ten registered offenders live within 1 mile of Somer's school,

Grove Park Elementary, a 10-minute walk from her home.

Finkelhor said sex offenders tend to have lower recidivism

rates than other felons, and many of the worst crimes are

committed by first-time offenders. However, he said,

it's well worth law enforcement officials' time to interview offenders

who have a history of crimes against children.

"One of the best and most important uses of registries is as

tool of law enforcement, so they can identify individuals

who have committed similar crimes. It is important to check

those people out."

The little girl's body was discovered in a garbage dump

used to dispose of trash from her part of town.



Thursday, October 22, 2009

How Many More

Under former District Attorney Wade, a number of
innocent people were tried and convicted. How many
more inmates who claim they are innocent really were
wrongly incarcerated? The idea that years of freedom
can be taken away without justification is scary.

The New York Times


October 22, 2009

NATIONAL BRIEFING | SOUTHWEST

Texas: Two Inmates Exonerated

Two Dallas men serving life sentences in prison in

a 1997 murder case are expected to be released

after another man confessed to the crime, the

Dallas County District Attorney’s Office said.

The two men, Claude Alvin Simmons Jr., 54,

and Christopher Shun Scott, 39, will appear

at a hearing on Friday. They have served

12 years in the killing of Alfonso Aguilar

during a break-in. After law students brought

statements by another man, Alonzo Hardy, 49,

to the attention of the district attorney’s office,

Mr. Hardy in June gave prosecutors a

lengthy videotaped confession. Mr. Hardy,

in prison since 1999 on a robbery conviction,

implicated another man in the killing,

Don Michael Anderson, 40, who was arrested Tuesday.