Thanks to lucianvenutian for permission to use this Photo.
It’s true that controversy is often manufactured by “the media” to create “news,” but I find the the issue of sex offenders’ rights, particularly those convicted of crimes against children, to only be controversial if seen through a filter more theoretical than pragmatic. In legal theory, the general question of whether a mandated process of full disclosure violates the rights of these offenders is a legitimate one. However; there is no moral equivalency between the rights afforded say someone convicted of a felony property crime in the past vs. someone convicted of a felony sex offense. Yes, I would like to know if the guy next store to me was convicted a burglary 10 years ago, but I can ultimately accept living in the dark to preserve this individual’s right to live freely in society after paying his debt. On the contrary, I would not accept living in the dark when it comes to compromising the safety of a defenseless child to protect the rights of a pedophile.
There’s also a disturbing element of political correctness influencing how communities see their role in protecting their own children. If, because of the law, there is no way to prevent a sex offender from moving into your neighborhood, it’s apparent that the instrument used to enforce the law (the police) can not be turned to for help unless it’s “after the fact.” What does a community do under these circumstances?
The media often characterizes communities who make it known that such offenders are not welcome as some type of vigilante mob. This is absurd. Yes, there are extreme cases where community members violently assault an offender to get the point across, but these are few and far between, which is why they make “the news.” The communities that have succeeded in removing these offenders from their neighborhoods have done so through organized protests, house eggings, and tactical use of the media to apply pressure. Although politically incorrect and offensive to legal scholars, I find these resourceful methods of forced exclusion to be perfectly reasonable.
What do you think?
Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth School Of Legal Studies
A recent U.S. Court case and new research are focusing attention on “workplace bullying,” prompting some employers to take steps to curb aggressive behavior.
There has been a lot of news articles lately regarding bullies in the work place. There was a time in the not-too-distant past that the word bully conjured up memories of the school yard bully, or the neighborhood bully. Not so anymore. According to a recent 2007 survey of 1,000 U.S. Workers, 44% said they had worked for a boss they considered abusive. The survey was sponsored by the Employment Law Alliance, an association of 3,000 employment lawyers.
This year, two Canadian professors concluded bullying can take a more severe emotional and physical toll than sexual harassment, perhaps because companies provide greater support for victims of the latter. In a review of 110 studies spanning two decades, the researchers found that bullied employees were more likely than sexually harassed employees to quit, report physical and mental health problems, and be dissatisfied with their jobs.
Garry Mathiason, a senior partner at Littler Mendelson, a leading employment-law firm, says more corporate clients are raising the issue, motivated by legal questions, as well as concerns about the impact on productivity. Littler Mendelson featured bullying among its “breaking trends” in labor law at a conference for U.S. Employers this year.
Dr. Ruth and Dr. Gary Namie equate workplace bullying with Psychological Violence in work. Their site Workplace Bullying Institute is an in-depth resource for anyone who feels they are a victim of workplace bullying.
Roger Mezger reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on July 26, 2004 that, “Some of the most common bullying tactics, according to a 2000 survey, include making unreasonable demands, yelling and screaming, insulting or putting down a worker, taking credit for someone else’s work, blaming others for mistakes, casting doubt on the quality of another’s work, creating arbitrary rules and isolating a worker. You can read his entire article by clicking here.
It seems to be common knowledge that the United States has the highest rate of her population imprisoned. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, one out of every 100 American’s are incarcerated. According to these same statistics, as of June 30, 2007, 2,299,116 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails – an increase of 1.8% from year-end 2006, less than the average annual growth of 2.6% from 2000-2006. USDJ-BJS.
With the introduction of community programs, such as Restorative Justice on the scene, one would think that the transition back into one’s community would be a little less stressful. In spite of the fact that courts are working with communities to ease this transition, and thus reduce recidivism, through education, compensation, and building trust, why is recidivism on the rise?
In considering these communities, we realize that they are made up of individuals like you and me. Perhaps they have been a victim. Perhaps a family member or other close relative or dear friend was a victim. This would explain some of the reasons why a community is not willing to give offenders the benefit of the doubt. If an offender cannot get decent housing, or a decent paying job, he/she has a far greater chance of re-offending.
Thanks to Alexis O’Toole for permission to use this Photo.
A pretext is an expression of a false purpose. Its goal is to introduce an acceptable excuse in order to hide, or cloak, a person’s real intention(s). When a private investigator uses a pretext that includes verbal communication, the focus should be toward obtaining pertinent information from sources close to the claimant, such as neighbors and fellow employees. Avoid contact with the claimant. If in a public location, the claimant initiates a conversation with you, you may not be held accountable. But, if the case ever makes it to court and this evidence is introduced, it will be his or her word against yours. Who will a judge believe? It depends, but the risks are too great to take a chance.The following steps will assist you in conducting a pretext interview:
Step one: Drive through the area first (preferably only once) to identify the claimant’s residence and determine how to best approach the various sources, starting at the perimeter. You may find the claimant active outside. During a brief activity check assignment on a claimant with an alleged severe injury to the lower back, I drove into the neighborhood and noticed he was mowing the yard with a push mower. The priority then became surveillance coupled with video documentation. But, if there’s no such luck, continue with the initial objective. Identify the vehicles and look for signs of activity by identifying what is visible on the property.
Step two: Park your vehicle out of view and select the pretext that seems most suited to the surroundings. Consider the economic, social, and cultural standards of the immediate area. Look for the neighbor whose home and property is obviously better maintained than the claimant’s. You may find some resentment toward the claimant who, as it turns out, rents the home while others own their property. These economic, social, cultural, and racial barriers can produce cooperative sources from either end, as long as there is some disapproval or jealousy that exists.
Step three: Use the opening remark you make to the source to determine the pretext that will be most productive. Even before identifying myself, which may already be evident in the outfit I’m wearing, I usually ask them in a straightforward manner if they are familiar with the claimant. The response you get will forewarn you about the pretext you should use and could prevent you from sticking your foot in your mouth. The response may range from a total lack of recognition to the possibility you’re speaking directly to the claimant who is visiting this source. If anything close to the latter scenario occurs, be prepared with an alternative pretext. Tell the source, or the claimant, that another individual recommended you talk with the claimant about something pertinent to their situation. It could be the sale of a boat, trailer, home, or any number of other personal items. You could even say that you were considering going to work for the claimant’s old employer and wanted their viewpoint. If the claimant owns a particularly special automobile or boat, or even a pet, tell him or her that you’re considering buying the same car or boat and someone recommended talking with the claimant about theirs. The majority of the time the response will be a general one of acknowledgement, and you can proceed with the appropriate pretext.
Step four: When talking with these sources, act comfortable, be friendly, and look for a source who is just as talkative. Combine a number of topics or lead the source to believe the focus of the inquiry is anything other than the claimant. Use a relaxed, nonchalant tone to imply the subject involving the claimant is relatively unimportant. Construct your questions to prompt detailed explanations and avoid yes and no responses. Unless it suits the pretext, don’t carry a pen, clipboard, or notepad. Retain the details mentally and record them as soon as the interview is concluded.
I have had many occasions to use the Internet to search for information related to evidence submitted to the laboratory. One recent case involved an auto theft in which the suspect stole the vehicle and then crashed it during his joyride. During the crash, the vehicle’s driver’s side airbag deployed. The suspect was apprehended a short distance away from the crash site and the arresting officer noticed a semicircular residue pattern on the suspect’s white t-shirt in addition to an abrasion pattern on the side of his face. The suspect denied any knowledge of the stolen vehicle and denied being in the vehicle. He stated that the abrasion on his face and the residue pattern on his shirt were due to a scuffle he had had earlier in the evening. The shirt and the airbag from the vehicle were submitted to the laboratory along with a request to look for any evidence which would place the suspect in the vehicle. The initial examination of the suspect’s shirt revealed a brownish residue pattern in which a stitched design was visible. This pattern was consistent in size and shape with the stitching pattern on the front of the airbag.
To learn more about how airbags are constructed and how they operate, I searched the Internet and found the manufacturers’ websites for the major manufacturers of airbags. These sites provided a wealth of information about how airbags are designed and the construction and composition of the bags. The sites also provided information about the propellants and the initiators used to create the gases which inflate the airbags upon impact. I also found information about the cornstarch based powder which is used during the folding and packing of airbags.
With the information I gained from the search, I was able to analyze residue from the suspect’s shirt and conduct analyses to show that the residue on his shirt contained materials consistent with the propellants used in airbags and that cornstarch granules were also present which were consistent with the material used in packaging airbags. I also compared the residue pattern and spacing on the shirt to the stitching pattern of the airbag to show that they were consistent. When presented with the laboratory results, the suspect changed his story and later pled guilty to the crime.
It should be noted that I am constantly visiting manufacturers’ websites to gain information about shoe sole patterns and tire tread designs. There are also many legal websites containing information about recent court cases and court decisions in reference to forensic evidence. Let me share a few of my favorite forensic web sites with you.
When it comes to fighting what are alleged to be court sanctioned injustices carried out through wrongful convictions, The Innocence Project is without question the most influential, well organized, and successful criminal defense organization in the world. The majority of cases they take on involve crimes where DNA testing has put into question and sometimes completely invalidated the evidence used to convict someone of a violent crime. In many cases, they defend those who are facing serious hard time, often life imprisonment, and who don’t have the financial resources to even get their voices heard by the court. I must also stress that this group is not without its’ detractors. As you can imagine, many of the victims’ families are convinced that these men are guilty as charged. Even in the face of new DNA evidence that was not available at the time of the trial, some family members still and perhaps will always remain unconvinced.
From my perspective, one has to review these cases on a case by case basis—and refrain from generalizing about what this organization’s true contributions are to criminal justice and/or injustice. In this video, you’ll hear the story of Ronald Clarke, a man who spent 24 years in prison on a robbery, kidnapping, and rape conviction. Mr. Clarke was later exonerated due to The Innocence Project’s tireless work to have his conviction overturned on the basis of DNA evidence. It’s a touching story. We look forward to hearing your comments on the blog. Take care…
Thanks to celinecelines for permission to use this Photo.
In this book, Professor Ewing tackles the most complex of all legal/psychological issues: the insanity defense. It has been employed thousands of times, but there is still little understanding by lawyers and psychologists of its proper use.
By analyzing some of the most well-known insanity cases in legal history, this book sheds light on the particularities of this defense; when it is successful, and when it is a sham. The casebook is an established format in which to illuminate legal questions, and yet no such book exists yet for this topic. Professor Ewing will examine 20 of the most influential and controversial insanity cases, from the recent D.C. sniper trial to Jack Ruby’s failed plea in his trial for the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald.
The cases are all carefully chosen to illuminate different ways in which the courts have handled this defense. Throughout, the author will add his own analysis of the cases and the reasons for the verdict. (more…)
Thanks to Dan Buck for permission to use this Photo.
I received the following e-mail twice yesterday from a supporter of the
West Memphis 3.
To Whom It May Concern:
I’m a little curious to know why you’re so adamant about the guilt of the
West Memphis Three? Especially after the lack of DNA evidence. I grew up in
Memphis and remember very vividly when the crime took place. The way the news media handled the case was ridiculous, and every southern baptist idiot within 200 miles was saying “obviously these are the guys who did it”.
Can’t you at least admit they didn’t get a fair trial? I understand you don’t want to be labeled a “follower”, but sometimes being a stubbornly obtuse contrarian can be even worse. What do you have against Natalie Maines anyway? If you’re still a Bush supporter, that might go a long way toward answering ALL of my questions.
I find this e-mail kind of ironic because the whole basis of the West Memphis 3 movement is that the WM3 were allegedly judged unfairly yet Mr. O’Bryan goes on to make a lot of judgments himself, but I digress.
Like I’ve said before I’ve been writing about school shootings for going on 8 years now. Over the years I’ve developed sort of a profile of school shooters. Damien Echols and company fit that profile to a T. Also like I’ve stated before if the WM3 were born 10 years later they would have been school shooters instead of child killers. Do I say that because they dressed in black and listened to heavy metal? No, because that describes me at the they were when they were convicted. Hell, it describes me now except now my black clothes are a suit and tie instead of an Iron Maiden T-Shirt and I’ll be metal until the day I die.
Can I admit that they didn’t receive a fair trial? No I can’t. I believe the movies and books made about them were heavily biased. The authors and filmmakers already had their goal in mind when they started. Not only that but they left a lot out of the whole story from their respective works.
As far as the DNA evidence or lack there of goes it proves nothing. The flip side to none of their DNA evidence being found at the scene is that Mark Byers’ DNA wasn’t there either. For years the WM3 supporters have called for the head of Mark Byers claiming that he was the one that actually committed the murders. I could then say that since his DNA evidence wasn’t there that he couldn’t have committed the murders either. Let’s not forget that their bodies were found in a creek which could have washed away any DNA. (more…)
Thanks to Robin Taylor for permission to use this Photo.
David Canter is one of the world’s foremost experts on investigative psychology, a discipline generally focusing on how psychological techniques such as behavior analysis and scientific profiling can be applied to criminal investigations. Canter’s work is primarily characterized by the type of profiling he espouses known as scientific criminal profiling, in which human (criminal) behavior is analyzed on a systematic level—allowing investigators to identify, classify, and predict dangerous trends in both individuals and groups that bond along common lines. The following podcast interview is a terrific introduction to David Canter’s perspectives on Terrorism, specifically his interest in more closely analyzing extremist motives or as he puts it: “what makes them tick.” This is a must-listen for all of Ashworth’s criminal justice students. Please share your thoughts afterwards.
Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth University
Thanks to milkfat for permission to use this Photo.
Not too long ago I was at a local Borders bookstore and had an urge to read something with a military background. I looked at books on tactics and books of historical value but I finally settled on something relatively current. I settled on the ARMY/Marines Counterinsurgency Field Manual. This book is of particular relevance to incident response and even forensics given the underground communities that often are encountered. I’ve taken a number of pages and dog-eared them and highlighted several sections so far. Perhaps one of the more interesting subjects is that of intelligence gathering. Intel gathering in COIN operations largely involves getting out and dealing with the population, earning their trust and respect and protecting them.
Since I’m just your average citizen - that is I don’t walk around with a badge and gun, and I don’t arrive in a black helicopter. I have the advantage of scoping out what’s happening without drawing attention, which is to say I can shoulder surf much easier than some. (more…)
Subscribe to Feed
