Cheating

An article in today's (August 19, 2011) Chronicle
of Higher Learning reports an experiment done at
Duke University. Two students in a class of 500
sent email to everyone in the course. It purported
to have a link to a question from a previous exam
that would help in the current exam. They then
counted how many people opened the link. More than
half had clicked on the link. There is no
way to determine if clicking was done out
of curiosity or to actually cheat.

The apparent willingness to cheat raises the issue
of whether this reflects a lack of ethical values
that can be factored in to the reasons for criminal
acts. Crime rates have actually been reported as
lower recently which on the surface appears to be
an anomaly. The expectation in a poor economy with
unemployment rates high is that there would be more
crime.

One explanation is that potential victims have little
or nothing worth taking. Another might be that high
unemployment means more people are about and would see
the criminal which would lead to faster apprehension.

Obviously when dealing with why a person does or does
not do something, we can only speculate or rely upon
what we are told.

Do you have an explanation? Could it be tested?

Totally unrelated to the criminal question, is
another that came to my mind when I read the article.

I was bothered by a class with so many students and
the limited opportunities for class discussions. Yes,
professors can still ask questions and students will
answer either verbally or with clickers, but only a
few students will actually speak up.

When you personally are in lecture hall classes, do
you believe that you are gaining as much from the
course as when you are in a small seminar-type setting?
Do you find yourself physically present but mentally
far away or even half asleep?

Would an online course have equally or more benefit
than a 500 person lecture hall course? Why or why not?

Solitary on Death Row

This article from the Texas Observer discusses

the effect of solitary confinement on death row

inmates.

Solitary can drive an inmate into a mental state

of insanity and the Supreme Court has said that

you cannot execute someone who is insane if they

do not understand that they are going to be

executed.

In Japan the condemned do not know when they

will be executed and each day wait to learn in the

morning if it is going to happen that day. Unlike in

the US, a Japanese prisoner is required to sit in a

specific manner all the time. There is also no

communication with another person. CNN did a

report on Japanese death row inmates that can

be read at

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-10/world/japan.executions_1_death-row-amnesty-international-mental-illness?_s=PM:WORLD

Our Super Max prisons use the same total isolation

concept for inmates. You can read about SuperMax

prisons, especially the one in Colorado, at

www.supermaxed.com/Federal-SM-Page.htm

For additional information go to bing.com and

type in SuperMax prison. Bing.com is an excellent

search engine and I personally prefer it over

Google. But any of the many search engines will

provide you with information.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

Budget Cuts Have High Criminal Justice Impact

The federal government is not alone in dealing with

budget woes. Unlike the federal government, however,

many states have a state constitutional requirement that

the budget be balanced.

To deal with inadequate amounts of revenue, states are

looking to make cuts in all programs. Some of the current

proposals are going to directly impact the criminal justice

system.

One proposal which appears to be getting wider support than

in the past involves sentencing guidelines and practices. Because

states like West Virginia literally have no room in the regional jails,

legislators are considering alternatives to jail time for low level

offenses.

One of the many complaints heard about having sentencing guidelines

is that the judges have no discretion to tailor a punishment to the

individual offender. Legislators feared making any changes

because an opponent would label them as "soft on crime." Budget

woes and voter concerns about the economy and deficits is making

it more likely that guidelines will soon be changed.

Research has shown that some alternatives work well and do not involve

the costs of incarceration. The odds are that more of these will be

considered in the months to come and be more acceptable to the

public.

What do you think of changes made because of the budget deficit?

Criminalize or Legalize

A number of states will be asking voters on Tuesday to
consider whether or not to legalize marijuana for medical
reasons. There does not appear to be any consensus on
whether or not this is good public policy.

One problem is that what relief, if any, relies on anecdotal

evidence. Scientific evidence requires facts that can be tested

by others with the same results; obviously this is a weakness

when one depends on anecdotal evidence. But allowing for

this weakness, it appears that those who are taking a wide variety

of chemotherapy drugs do report getting relief from the nausea

when they are allowed to use marijuana.

The problem, or a major one, lies in the inability to have any

meaningful way of controlling the writing of prescriptions

for those who want it for any other purpose beyond

just control of nausea after chemotherapy.

The recent conviction of Howard K. Smith associated with his

obtaining drugs for her is a good example of prescription abuse.

The wall between government and patient/doctor privilege

must be high enough to be unscalable.

Another factor is that if it is a prescription then insurance

will be asked to pay for it or part of its costs. With talk of

government involvement in health care costs, the partisan

arguments may get hostile and raises another issue that

will be highly divisive at a time when

unity is needed to face our economic woes.

If marijuana is legal, then states can tax it and thus raise revenue

much as is done with lottery tickets and alcohol. This is opposed

forcefully by many conservatives for religious and moralistic

reasons. Many point to the results in the growth of crime families

when alcohol was first prohibited and then legalized.

Studies will need to look at results in California where it is legal

in many areas. In fact courts are being asked to decide whether

states have the constitutional right to legalize something that

is contrary to federal governmental policy.

It is important that information be made available that

shows both sides of the argument as well as the underlying

research to establish the argument. Since this is becoming

a major issue on the ballot box, and in some states, is being

raised as a possible constitutional amendment. Each of us must

begin to think about our position and the research that we

have looked to in reaching the position. For some

it is, and will always be, a question of religion or our interpretation

of morality. For others it will be a question of research results.

Where do you personally stand?

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Innocent people spend years in jail and there
is nothing done to prosecutors when it is shown
that they prosecuted an innocent person KNOWINGLY.

An article in USA today brings attention to the
large number of cases that have come to light.

An off-Broadway play called the Exonerated called
attention to the problem a few years ago. A Chicago
newspaper ran a series of articles when the governor
pardoned a large number of inmates who were found to
be innocent.

The Innocence Project which involves journalism students
as well as law school students does a great deal of
searching for proof of wrongful convictions.

The main thing is to realize that it can happen to you,
a middle class person who has never had so much as a
parking ticket. Proving innocence is difficult to do.
How can you prove you were somewhere (maybe at home)
alone at a specific time? Do you keep every receipt you
ever get to have time stamps available (no one I know
does)?

Read this article and realize that these things happen
and the worst part is that nothing happens to the
prosecutor when misconduct is proved. But the innocent person
becomes an ex-felon for life unless the case generates
enough media or political attention to end in a pardon.

Assisted Suicide

Switzerland has recently revised its policy about
assisted suicides and Great Britain stopped prosecuting
those who went to another country to help someone commit
suicide.

Three of the United States allow assisted suicide -- Oregon,
Washington, and Montana. I have not seen any published
numbers to indicate whether or not many take advantage of it
or not.

It raises a host of issues involving end of life that became
part of a national debate when a young woman, Terri Schiavo, who
was in a long term coma and never expected to recover, had her
husband and family fighting over whether to pull the plug to the
artificial machinery that was keeping her alive. It was even
litigated and a topic of discussion in Congress. She eventually
was transferred to a nursing home and without life
support finally died after a few weeks.

Sciavo's case also revived the use of medical directives and
medical power of attorney forms. Today anyone who is hospitalized
is asked about whether they want resuscitation used if needed.

Because there are so many ethical and religious aspects to discussions
of issues such as assisted suicide, consensus will probably never
be attainable. But predetermining our wishes on quality of life
and steps to take if we are comatose and in a vegetative
state is something each of us owes to family members
who should not be required to make decisions without
any indication of the person's desires.

About the only time this is an area of discussion, especially
with younger persons, occurs when the news reports on a traffic
accident victim who is in a coma. Then some younger folk may
state something to the effect of
wanting or not wanting life support continued indefinitely.

There have been cases of spouses who were fulfilling the wishes of the
other and faced charges and in some cases were sent to prison on charges
of homicide.

In 2007 Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, was released
from prison after 8 years. He became known as Dr. Death because
of his assistance to those who wished to end their lies and were
chronically ill with no chance of recovery. He did not do anything
himself to end a life but did provide the means for the individual
who wished to die.

A case involving Elizabeth Bouvier involved her refusal to be force
fed; she went to court claiming her right to make medical decisions
based on her own standard of the quality of life. By the time all
the appeals ended, she decided she wished to live.

Don't take Presumption as a given

Two Americans are in jail in Juarez after being
accused of drug trafficking. They have been found
guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

BUT their claim, supported by three witnesses, is
that the military planted the drugs in their truck.
One witness was killed before the trial and the
other two disappeared.One cannot overlook the fact
that the vast majority of prisoners, worldwide, claim
innocence.

However we also know of cases where years
later prisoners are released and then exonerated because
they were innocent all along and should never have been
sent to jail/prison for a crime they did not commit.

Recently a New York man was released after 27 years when
in fact he was innocent all along. How do you compensate
for taking so many years and life experiences away from
someone? How do you compensate for the horrors endured
while locked up?

A most interesting aspect of this story from Juarez
is the fact that in Mexico an accused is presumed to
be guilty and has the burden of proving innocence. Consider
the handicap of trying to gather evidence to prove
a government agency planted evidence against you or
tortured you or in anyway infringed upon your basic civil rights.

In our country and in many western nations, the presumption
is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. Proving
innocence when unjustly accused is difficult enough without
the added problem of having the burden of proof.

Americans tend to take our Bill of Rights for granted and do
not stop to realize that any one of us could be falsely accused
because of mistaken identity or any of a litany of hard to
imagine occurrences. Go to
and read about a woman who spent 9 years in prison for a crime she
had nothing to do with.

The show Sixty Minutes, which has the resources, were able to prove her
innocence as well as that of another gentleman, also prosecuted by
the Dallas District Attorney's Office. It would be nice to think
that these two are a rarity but unfortunately every state has some
who should never have been sent to prison. Even after being shown
to be innocent, the stigma of the accusation follow one for life.