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

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 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

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 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 Ryan Junell for permission to use this Photo.

“My big picture goal is to become a detective.”  That’s something a police sergeant or lieutenant hears from every street cop. It seems few want to spend their career pushing a black and white around their beat. While working the streets is a great job, eventually you come a point that you want to do something else. Perhaps, you want to be a detective. Here’s some good advice on getting a detective spot.

Education is the best part-time job.  Your career is under your control. If it is drifting it is because you are letting it drift. So, take the wheel. A great first step is to get an undergraduate degree. Take a look at my article Criminal Justice: Why and How. Then, consider, an interview panel doesn’t care what courses you took. They aren’t going to ask you about your undergraduate class in criminological theory. However, they are going to know, and you are going to tell them that an undergraduate degree says:  

1.  You can work independently. 

2. You can work in groups. 

3. You can manage competing resources.

4. You can manage a long term plan.

5. You are capable of research

6. You can read and write at the college level.

7. You were exposed to different cultures

Doesn’t that sound like a first class detective? While you are working on your undergraduate degree work on your skills as a police officer. About halfway through my probation on the department I responded to a homicide scene. A man had been stabbed to death on a street corner. Like the typical blue suit, I put the tape up, started the log and called the detectives. They came and investigated. Even though it happened in broad daylight, no one saw a thing. (more…)

 
              Thanks to Anne for permission to use this Photo.

Let’s face it, when it comes to blockbuster movies and hit television shows centered around the criminal justice/legal system, the image of the paralegal, if even portrayed at all, will always remain in the shadow of the lawyer, whose’ cultural archetypes range from the honest to the corrupt to the heroic, etc.  Well, when it comes to dramatic appeal and TV-ready storylines, the paralegal profession may have found a star in the form of Susan Hu, a paralegal working for the Center For Constitutional Rights (CCR), a non-profit legal organization that has played a sometimes controversial role in the legal proceedings of detainees being held at  Guantanamo Bay.

Irrespective of your political views, the story that Susan Hu has to tell provides us with a rare glimpse into one of the most intensely debated legal issues this country has ever seen; the rights of prisoners (detainees) classified as enemy combatants.  I hope all our paralegal students realize that this profession can take you anywhere in life, including environments you could never have imagined yourself working in, i.e. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Here is the video profile of Susan Hu.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts. 

Wendy Webb
Paralegal Program Instructor
Ashworth University

I was watching television on Monday night when a new AMBER Alert flashed on the screen.  It turns out the case in question was a hoax, but this unusual development should not detract in any way from the importance and effectiveness of this system.  For those of you unfamiliar with this law enforcement tool, an Amber Alert is a notification message that is transmitted on highway billboards as well as (commercial) television, radio, online, and wireless channels when a child has been abducted. It’s an amazing system that has literally saved hundreds of young lives in danger.  Since we have our own communications channel here with the AU Blogspot, I thought it appropriate to do our part in raising additional awareness about the purpose of AMBER Alerts.  If you have any “happy ending” stories from your state, please share them with your student community.  Thank you. 

Ryan Rode
Ashworth University

 
           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