AU Blogspot

 
              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

The term “forensic science” is practically a household term these days. With programs such as the CSI series, to the Law and Order programs, and even now that we have reality shows such as Oxygen’s “Snapped”,  and Court TV’s“Till Death Us Do Part”,  and more, it has educated us regarding forensic science. However, we very seldom hear the term “forensic pathology” and even less “forensic psychology”.  Actually, it is the “science” of that term that is varied, NOT the forensic that is varied. In order to understand the terms, we must first understand the word “forensic” itself if we are to understand the “science” of forensics. 

The term “forensics” has the same Latin origins as the word “forum” meaning “a room for public debate”. Howitt, Dennis, Forensic and Criminal Psychology, 2^nd Edition, 2006, p.2. So, no matter what the specialty of forensics, be it pathology, or psychology,  “the science” of the particular discipline is debated in an open forum, particularly a court of law, hence “forensic”.

So, the practice of forensic psychology, and pathology is the application of these individual sciences to answer questions that relate to the legal system, the legal system being the “room for public debate”. 

If one is a practitioner of forensic “science” they are applying accepted and/or scholarly methods that substantiate facts regarding the physical evidence. For example unknown chemicals at a crime scene, a dead body, or cadaver, etc. This type of forensic science is also used to determine forged documentation. In essence it is the application of proven methods applied to physical evidence to determine that evidence’s origin and/or use.

Pathology under the auspice of forensics is that branch of medicine that deals with determining the cause of death. The word itself literally means “study of suffering”.  The “science” is that of determining what caused death, i.e., in the case of strangulation, there are three basic types that a pathologist can determine. They are manual strangulation,(meaning with bare hands), ligature strangulation, (a piece of material tied around the victim’s neck), and choke holds. The science of pathology allows the pathologist to testify in court (forensic) in regards to a death by “unnatural” causes.

Another area of forensic science is that of psychology. This is quite different than the specialties referenced above. It is the science or study of psychology AKA human behavior, that is used in courts in relation to criminal behavior. The forensic psychologist studies the “theories of crime” from a psychological aspect and applies these theories in court as to why a person may have committed a crime.

So in summation, it is important to remember that pathology, and psychology are “sciences” that when practiced for evidence in the judicial system it then becomes “forensics” because the courtroom is the “open forum for debate” of that specific area of study.   

Betty Ray Mydland
Student
Ashworth Criminal Justice Program

In my opinion, it’s a combination of many factors. Defining the cause of deviant behaviour as being purely caused by one factor can open a huge can of worms.

If you follow the biological theory, the conclusion could result in defining areas where the higher crime rates are comprised of people with “faulty” genes. In that same school, genetic testing could be administered and the results of the findings could be used to label people as being predisposed to the possibilities of committing a crime. Therefore, the profiling of a group of people leads to the possibility of infringements on their rights–just to be safe.

Another theory may deal with the socio-economic reasons for crimes committed.  Some people may feel that it’s out of necessity to do illegal acts. Granted, the harsher crimes of rape and murder are possibly out of the scope of comparison of a mugging because someone needed money. Still, a crime is a crime when discussing the generalities of “why?”  

This same ideal could also be used to support the concept of people committing crimes because of the better living arrangements provided while incarcerated relative to the options they may have in the free world.

In any case, this is a topic that can be discussed and debated until the second coming. Again, this is all opinion with no references cited. Just my limited knowledge and ideas based on what I’ve read, heard, and seen. 

*If you’re interested in participating in open discussions with your classmates on a variety of fascincating subjects. please visit the Ashworth Student Discussion Forum today!

John
Student
Ashworth Business Administration Program

 
             Thanks to suite100gallery for permission to use this Photo.

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.

Betty Ray Mydland
Student
Ashworth Criminal Justice Program

     
              Thanks to celinecelines for permission to use this Photo.

This is a very hot topic within the criminal justice field.  As such, there is a lot of misconception about this defense.  One of the most recent cases that has affected legislation is that of Andrea Yates.

For full trial coverage, you can go here.

What this case did for the state of Texas, known for its TOUGH ON CRIME and zero tolerance for murder, ESPECIALLY of children, was sign into legislation a bill concerning Postpartum Depression. 

For a history of the insanity defense check out this terrific resource.

The major misconception about the insanity defense is that many people believe that just because a defendent has chosen this defense, they are going to get off.  Actually this isn’t the case.  According to the following statistics reported by FOX news in February 2002, the insanity defense works in less than 1% of all cases.

Given the insanity rules of McNaughton, Durham, should this be a defense at all in criminal prosecution?

Betty Ray Mydland
Student
Ashworth Criminal Justice Program

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.  

According to the Restorative Justice Organization, some of the outcomes are: (more…)

I have been employed in the field of forensics for over twenty-five years.  When introduced to the field and opinion testimony, it was stressed to me during my training and subsequent contacts within the field that all scientists must not be biased while performing analyses or on the witness stand.  As a forensic scientist, one is not working for the prosecution or the defense.  His only obligation is to disclose the knowledge gained through his examinations.  

During one of the last few episodes of one of the CSI programs this past season, the statement was made by one analyst to another “we will get him”.   Even more appalling than this to me, I watched as a well known pathologist exited the courtroom after giving his testimony. He seemed to take more pleasure in front of the camera for the media than giving his opinion as to the findings in the case. 

Analysts would like to be treated professionally by all parties.  If one seeks the respect of individuals within his profession and those he testifies before, it goes a long way to treat them with the same respect you desire.  This can be obtained by sharing your knowledge to both sides without any bias. 

Steve Byrd
Instructor
Ashworth University Forensic Science Program

The creation of the Criminal Justice “Study Hall” forum was inspired by one of your fellow students: Betty Ray Mydland.  The general concept behind this particular forum or “Study Hall” is to provide students in our various Criminal Justice programs with a dedicated “space” to openly discuss criminal justice program issues, lessons, topics, careers, questions, news, ideas, etc.

Thanks to Betty for this excellent recommendation. Well, the forum has been created. It’s up to our forum community to spread the word and get as many of your peers engaged as possible. I’m really looking forward to watching this Study Hall evolve. 

If you haven’t registered for the Ashworth University Student Forum yet, take a minute to do so.  It literally only takes a minute before you’re ready to join the discussion. 

We encourage all of our Criminal Justice/Legal Studies students to begin participating in this new Study Hall today!  Get involved with your student community!

Here’s the link:

Criminal Justice Study Hall Forum

Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth University

            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.

Larry W. Davis
Private Investigation Program Instructor
Ashworth University

 
              Thanks to Hulagway for permission to use this Photo.

Various issues arise as the concept of surrogacy comes before the legislatures of the country.  One case that I handled for the Attorney General’s Office dealt with a surrogate mother, and is an example of how crazy surrogacy issues can become.  This lady had been hired to have a baby for a multi-millionaire.  He was not married and seemed to be tiring of his fortunes when he decided that he would like to have an heir.  The surrogate mother gave birth to a healthy little girl and the man accepted the child, made payment, and went on his merry way.  Then two months later, the man had one of his “assistants” drop the baby back off at the surrogate mother’s home with a note stating that he simply could not emotionally handle the responsibilities of being a parent. 

We received the case because the surrogate mother was now going after the biological father for child-support payments.  This was one case where our heads were spinning every time we dealt with it.  The surrogate mother never wanted to have a child of her own and was simply interested in making some money when she agreed to the surrogacy contract.  After receiving the baby back, however, she did not have the heart to give the child up for adoption, and developed an appreciation for motherhood.  The court held that the biological father DID have a duty to support the child and awarded the mother $1700 a week in support, due to the biological father’s extreme wealth. 

That case has definitely been recorded in the storybook of child support and surrogacy, as well.  It is a fun story to tell, while at the same time it illuminates how obscure the issues can become in the area of surrogacy contracts. 

Wendy Webb
Family Law Instructor
Ashworth University School of Legal Studies