Warped Sense of Humor

December 6, 2009

4 American Teenagers Arrested in Japan

By HIROKO TABUCHI

TOKYO — Four teenagers from an American military

base in Japan were arrested on charges of attempted

murder on Saturday for allegedly toppling a woman

riding her motorbike, causing her to suffer a serious

head injury.

In the August episode, which has received national

coverage in Japan, a 23-year-old motorbike rider

suffered a fractured skull when she hit rope that

the authorities say had been strung across a road

by the four teenagers near the Yokota Air Base in Tokyo.

The suspects are three boys and a girl, ages 15 to 18,

who all are children of United States military personnel.

Local police officers arrested them after surveillance

videotapes showed them near the site of the crash.

One of the teenagers sought help from a passer-by

for the injured woman, according to news reports.

The police said that American officials were cooperating

in the investigation.

Base-related crime is a delicate issue in Japan, where

about 47,000 American troops are stationed under a

mutual security pact. The United States and Japan are

still negotiating the relocation of another United States

military base, the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma

in Okinawa, in the aftermath of a public outcry over

the rape of a local schoolgirl by three American

servicemen in 1995.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Is 29 years on Death Row Cruel and Unusual Punishment

A recently executed prisoner was on Death Row for 29 years
in Tennessee. The issue of the 8th Amendment's violation
came up in an opinion by Justice Stevens that was joined
by Justice Breyer. Both Justices believe that the issue
of being held for many years prior to execution is one the
Supreme Court should consider. Justice Thomas opposes
doing this.

To read a fuller discussion and have links to the opinion
itself click here.

Study says Capital Punishment Does NOT Deter

The Journal itself is well worth reading and there is a link at
the bottom of the article to the issue that has the report

From Crime and Justice Newsletter

Capital Punishment Not Likely A Murder Deterrent: Study
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contrary to the common belief that capital punishment deters
murderers, a study by Tomislav Kovandzic, Lynne Vieraitis,
and Denise Paquette Boots of the University of Texas at Dallas
concludes that most offenders do not likely weigh the costs
and benefits of crime and are not likely to be deterred by
the existence of the death penalty. Many homicides are
committed when offenders are under extreme emotional
duress and are unlikely to be thinking of the legal sanctions.
The study, in the November 2009 issue of the journal Criminology
and Public Policy, edited at Florida State University, says
that for the death penalty to serve as a deterrent, the
probability of getting caught and punished must be
greater than any benefit the offender could achieve
from committing the crime. Commenting on the study,
Paul Rubin of Emory University contends that the mere
probability of execution is likely to deter at least some
potential murderers. Rubin finds studies of capital punishment
problematic because only convicted criminals are
examined-not those who have been deterred-and
because the death penalty is imposed too infrequently
and erratically to measure its deterrent effects well.
The journal is sent to members of the American Society of Criminology.

Criminology & Public Policy journal

First Amendment and Lawyers

Sometimes even the best lawyers find the law
difficult to follow if it conflicts with their
fiduciary duty to the client. This case is before
the Supreme Court, and while it involves bankruptcy,
it clearly shows how laws can have unintended
consequences.

December 2, 2009
Federal Law Limiting Legal Advice Draws Particular Interest at the Supreme Court

By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — Several justices seemed convinced on Tuesday that a federal law restricting the advice bankruptcy lawyers may offer was a bad idea. But they had differing ideas about what the Supreme Court should do about it.

“It’s a stupid law,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “Where is the prohibition of stupid laws in the Constitution?”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., on the other hand, appeared receptive to the argument that the law violated the First Amendment by intruding into the relationship between lawyers and clients.

The justices, all of whom are lawyers, seemed to take particular interest in the case, presumably because it concerns lawyers’ free speech rights.

“Congress often forgets about the First Amendment,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, “but lawyers don’t.”

The law forbids advising clients “to incur more debt in contemplation of” a bankruptcy filing. Piling on debt just before filing for bankruptcy in the hope that it will not have to be repaid is, all concerned agreed, an abuse of the system and may amount to fraud. But state ethics rules already forbid lawyers to advise their clients to break the law.

On the other hand, some new debt is both legal and prudent. It may be a good idea to refinance a mortgage to pay down credit card debt or to take out a loan to buy a car to get to work. The 2005 law seems to forbid lawyers to give advice about that second sort of action.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked about medical expenses. Suppose, she said, that a woman was “just told by her doctor that she has a serious cancer that needs operation and radiation and she is at the end of the line on resources.” Could the woman’s lawyer advise her to take on more debt to treat the cancer?

It depends, said William M. Jay, a lawyer for the government. Lawyers may not advise clients to add debt in two situations, he said: in an effort to abuse the bankruptcy system or to defraud creditors.

That answer did not satisfy Chief Justice Roberts. “Under your construction,” he told Mr. Jay, “it seems to me that a lawyer trying to give correct, legal, ethical advice has got to pause before every sentence” and worry about whether the advice will later be seen as a violation of the law.

The case, Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States, No. 08-1119, was brought by a Minnesota law firm that objected to three parts of the law. In addition to the core First Amendment challenge, the firm argued that Congress had not meant to cover lawyers in the first place. That argument did not seem to gain much traction with the justices.

The firm also objected to a requirement in the law that its advertising include this statement or something like it: “We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he was troubled by that requirement. “A prospective client looks at that,” he said, “and they say, ‘Well, I don’t want a debt relief agency, I want a lawyer.’ “

Mr. Jay said the firm was free to add to and clarify the statement. “There is no restriction on what content goes in the ad,” he said, “only that it include this disclaimer.”

As for the part of the law restricting legal advice, Mr. Jay said it should be narrowed rather than struck down.

The law, the government said in a brief, should be read to bar “only advice to take on debt with an intent to abuse the bankruptcy laws, such as advice to charge a vacation, concert tickets or some similar purchase to a credit card, knowing that the purchaser will enjoy the full benefit of the purchase and then shed most or all of the debt in bankruptcy.”

But G. Eric Brunstad Jr., a lawyer for the Minnesota law firm, said the law “whipsaws the attorneys who are trying to apply it.” State ethics rules “say you have to give unfettered, candid advice to your client,” he said, while the federal law says “you must give truncated advice.”


Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Over-Punishment? Texas schools?

This article relates to New York, but the
same issue could be raised about Texas
schools. The bottom line is whether our
obsession with zero tolerance is creating
mountains out of mole hills and forgetting
that there are other ways to correct poor
behavior that doesn't relate to juvenile
delinquency or arrests or other actions
even expulsion when not truly justified.

Read the article and decide for yourself
whether we are over-punishing. There
have been no articles that I have read
which complain about students' being
harassed by security officers in Texas.

The question I am posing is whether
zero tolerance needs to be re-considered.
We do not want students using drugs, but
one Advil or Tylenol to relieve cramps or
pain from an injury is far different from
drug use. A kindergärtner who brings a
Grandparent's Swiss Army knife for show and
tell should not be expelled. The principal and
the parents could deal with this issue easily.

Bullying needs swift reprisal and maybe a few
weeks in an alternative school might be
justified. But expulsion usually results in a
student just getting into more trouble
because no one is monitoring him/her in
the average two-parents working or
single-parent home.

November 29, 2009
EDITORIAL
Over-Punishment in Schools

New York City joined a national trend in 1998 when it put
the police in charge of school security. The consensus is
that public schools are now safe. But juvenile justice
advocates across the country are rightly worried about
policies under which children are sometimes arrested and
criminalized for behavior that once was dealt with by
principals or guidance counselors working with a student’s parents.

Children who are singled out for arrest and suspension are
at greater risk of dropping out and becoming permanently
entangled with the criminal justice system. It is especially
troubling that these children tend to be disproportionately
black and Hispanic, and often have emotional problems or
learning disabilities.

School officials in several cities have identified overpolicing
as a problem in itself. The New York City Council has taken
a first cut at the problem by drafting a bill, the Student
Safety Act, that would bring badly needed accountability
and transparency to the issue.

The draft bill would require police and education officials
to file regular reports that would show how suspensions
and other sanctions affect minority children, children
with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. Detailed
reports from the Police Department would show which
students were arrested or issued summonses and why,
so that lawmakers could get a sense of where
overpolicing might be a problem.

Most important, the bill would create an easily navigable
system under which parents, students and teachers
could file complaints against school security officers.
This provision comes in response to a 2007 report by
the New York Civil Liberties Union, which said students
were being roughed up for minor infractions like talking
back or walking the halls without a pass.

The Police Department and the Department of Education
are sometimes stingy with data. But the City Council is on
the right track when it says that the disciplinary system
could benefit from greater transparency. Lawmakers who
are negotiating with the city over the language of the
bill should keep this basic point in mind.


Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Just words on a Piece of Paper

In the United States, the First Amendment's Rights of
Freedom of speech and the Right to Petition the
Government for grievances are taken very seriously
by branches of government. In China, the constitution
also grants many rights, but that is sometimes where
the rights end according to the following article from
the New York Times

______________________________________
November 27, 2009
A Rare Chinese Look at Secret Detentions
By ANDREW JACOBS
BEIJING — In a rare dose of candor that contradicts past
official statements, a state-run magazine has published an
article that details a secret network of detention centers
used to prevent aggrieved citizens from lodging complaints
against the Chinese government.

Liaowang, or Outlook, a dependably stodgy publication
aimed at Communist Party bureaucrats and policy makers,
ran an exposé on Tuesday laying out the Byzantine network
of interceptors, guards and holding pens used to put off
the petitioners who flock to Beijing in the hope that the
authorities will resolve longstanding grievances, many of
them involving official corruption in their hometowns.

According to the report, which was also published online
by the official Xinhua news agency, those grabbed off the
street often have their cellphones and identification
confiscated before being locked away in guesthouses
or dank basements. After being held for days or weeks,
inadequately fed and sometimes beaten, they are shipped
back to their home provinces with the admonition that
they stay away from the capital.

At peak times, the article said, as many as 10,000 retrievers
— those paid by local officials to keep petitioners from
successfully filing their complaints — roam Beijing in search
of quarry. The report counted 73 secret detention centers,
many of them run by regional governments, and laid out in
detail the lucrative business of retrieving, detaining and
sending home petitioners. The magazine described it as a
“chain of gray industry.”

Such a system of extralegal detention, sometimes called black jails,
“damages the legitimate rights of petitioners and seriously damages
the government’s image,” the article said.

Although the right to petition the authorities is enshrined
in the Constitution, that right is frequently swallowed up
by the reality of contemporary China’s system of governance:
local officials, facing pressure to maintain social stability,
are penalized for allowing too many complainants to
find their way to the offices of the central government.

The article in Outlook comes less than two weeks after
Human Rights Watch issued a report documenting China’s
network of secret jails — a report that prompted a Foreign
Ministry spokesman to deny their existence. “There are no
black jails in China,” Qin Gang, the spokesman, said when
asked about the report. “If citizens have complaints and
suggestions about government work, they can convey
them to the relevant authorities through legitimate and
normal channels.”

Given the government’s tight control of the media,
human rights advocates expressed guarded optimism
that the article might signal a shift away from official
tolerance for the jails, which are thought to have
existed since 2005.

“The fact that the report focuses on the issue in a
substantive and detailed way gives us hope that the
Chinese government might end its longtime denial of
the existence of black jails and move toward closing
them down, liberating the detainees and bringing
the perpetrators to justice,” said Phelim Kine, a
Hong Kong-based researcher with Human Rights Watch.

Zhang Jing contributed research.

•
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Community Policing is Paying Off with Positive Results in Boston

Copied from this site:http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/25/reports_of_violent_crime_dip_in_boston/

This is a good example of how community policing can produce laudable results


Violent crime down in Boston
Steady decline since ’06 credited to police work, neighborhood groups
By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff | November 25, 2009

Violent crime has dipped dramatically in Boston, with homicides on a pace to decrease by 20 percent by year’s end - an encouraging trend that law enforcement officials and community activists are working to preserve during the often volatile holiday season.

The drop - 44 homicides through Sunday compared with 56 by the same date last year - is a continuation of the steady decline that began after 2006, when the number of killings reached 75.

Police and city activists who work with youth on the streets say the decrease is a result of several factors: better communication between law enforcement officials and community groups, growing weariness of violence from people in the city’s historically troubled neighborhoods, and a return to crime-fighting initiatives that were successful in the 1990s, when the city experienced a sharp fall in the number of homicides.

“I’m very happy with the way things are going,’’ Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis said in an interview yesterday. “The community has been happy with the progress that’s been made and they want to see it continue, and it’s my plan to deliver that to them.’’

Federal statistics show homicides decreased slightly nationwide - about 5 percent - between 2006 and 2008, the most recent years available.

Despite the progress in Boston, community leaders and police said they do not want to take the quiet for granted, especially around Thanksgiving and the Christmas holidays, when alcohol-fueled parties can lead to violence.

On Friday, leaders of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, a nonprofit organization that works closely with police to prevent crime, will launch the “Season of Peace,’’ an annual campaign that asks young people to refrain from committing acts of violence during the holidays.

Davis said he will place more patrol officers and detectives on city streets on the nights of the long holiday weekend. “We’re always cautious at this time of year,’’ he said.

The decrease in violent crime in Boston extends over recent years.

In 2005, when the number of homicides spiked to a 10-year high, 64 had been committed by Thanksgiving and 75 by the end of the year. The following year, there were 68 by the November holiday and 75 for the year. But in 2007, the number began to decline slightly with 63 homicides by Thanksgiving and 66 by year’s end.

Since then, the number of violent crimes - with the exception of rapes - has fallen steadily, a drop Davis said is in large part the result of a reinvestment in strategies that target gangs. Earlier this year, police attributed the rise in rapes to more reporting, rather than an actual increase in assaults. They also noted that the year before had seen far fewer rapes reported, which made the increase seem even more dramatic.

A key factor in the decline of other violent crimes, Davis said, is the department’s increasingly aggressive use of Operation Ceasefire, a collaboration of law enforcement and community groups that offers gang members social services like counseling, job training, and school help in exchange for an end to violence. Police and prosecutors threaten long-term federal imprisonment if gang members continue to be violent.

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley’s office attributed the drop in part to the arrests and convictions of so-called violent “impact players’’ and gang members for nonfatal shootings and gun possession cases.

’’The message is getting out that there’s going to be accountability if you use violence on the streets of Boston,’’ Conley said in a prepared statement.

Another reason, according to law enforcement officials, is the presence of more street workers, who are hired to form relationships with gang members and keep them away from crime. The Boston Foundation has added 13 more street workers to collaborate with those already working for the city.

Nature might have also lent a hand.

In June, an onslaught of rainy weather hit Boston. At the time, the commissioner welcomed the rain because he said violence is tamped down when people are inside. But yesterday, Davis dismissed its role in the overall drop, saying that when good weather returned, violence remained low.

“I think there is really good work going on out there,’’ he said.

Davis said he has assigned more officers to work in Operation Homefront, a program in which police visit high-risk minors at home to build relationships with their families. Davis said the officers have been focusing their visits on known gang members who are likely to use guns.

The department’s gang intelligence has also improved, Davis said, as more officers show up at events organized by youth groups, like the Boys and Girls Club, and district captains attend neighborhood meetings. That kind of presence engenders trust, which leads to more tips, he said.

The department’s intelligence unit, which gathers information about gang activity and crime patterns around the city, has been sharing more information with community groups that work closely with police and other law enforcement agencies.

The Rev. Jeffrey Brown, executive director of the TenPoint Coalition, said youths and adult residents deserve some of the credit for Boston’s decrease in violence. After years of tolerating shootings near their homes, many are joining or forming small neighborhood watch groups and even mediating between feuding groups in their own communities.

“It really is the beginning of an antiviolence movement,’’ Brown said, “and it’s about time.’’

Maria Cramer can be reached at mcramer@globe.com.



© Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company