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
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.
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?
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!
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.
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 Mike Warren for permission to use this Photo.
Many of you may not know who Anthony Bell is, but he is creating quite a scene here in Louisiana. After much consideration, he was allowed to represent himself in his murder trial, despite several psychologists determining his IQ is BELOW 75. He’s in that Forrest Gump range.
Now, Anthony Bell is making death threats to prosecution witnesses, and changing his mind daily as to whether or not he wants to continue to represent himself.
The 911 call placed after the murders he stands accused of shows Bell stating “I didn’t mean to kill her”.
So my question to the masses is……can justice be done with this situation?
I know each citizen has the right to represent themselves…..but when does the court determine that it would be against the defendant’s best interest to do so?
So much about this trial makes me shake my head and wonder.
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…)
David Feige is a public defender from the Bronx, New York who has written a very compelling and uncompromising book called “Indefensible.” The book focuses on Feige’s career working with a madcap cast of characters, from corrupt judges to megalomaniacal lawyers—from cold blooded killers to innocent men serving hard time, and it all transpires inside the Bronx’s somewhat notorious court system. This podcast interview captures the essence of Feige’s lifelong commitment to justice, while also illuminating the darker recesses of the criminal justice system that “society” indirectly permits through our collective indifference. After listening to Feige’s journey, I encourage you to share your perspectives on judicial reform with the AUCJ community. Take care.
Ronald Laitsch
Criminal Law and Procedure Instructor
Ashworth University
Thanks to Carol Esther for permission to use this Photo.
I definitely second that. I took the Reid Technique back in 2003 and have greatly benefited from the training. You learn so much about determining when a suspect is lying or telling the truth that you can apply to many activities such as interviewing job applicants or just interacting with suspects on the street. In fact, I passed the exam to attain the CRT (Certified in the Reid Technique) designation last year. Having those initials after your name is a big help in getting a good job in loss prevention.
You can find out more about seminar dates and materials at www.reid.com. Remember that the cost of job training is tax deductible!
Subscribe to Feed
