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.
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?
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.
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 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
Most crimes are defined by state statutes and are prosecuted in state courts. The others are federal crimes, prosecuted only in federal court. Certain key items that the government must prove to show that a crime occurred are called elements. For example, generally, a crime has been committed when two elements can be proven. That is, a crime has been committed when a person both:
1) engages in a prohibited act, and
2) has criminal intent, or state of mind, that prompted the act.
Suppose that Jimmy Bob really doesn’t like Sammy and thinks constantly about an elaborate plan to run over Sammy with his motor scooter. However, Jimmy Bob gets grounded, and his father sells his motor scooter. Jimmy Bob does not forget about his plan; in fact, for months he regrets that he did not carry it out. Although his negative emotions are strong, Jimmy Bob never acts on his hatred for Sammy. A year later, Sammy moves to a different town. Gradually, Jimmy Bob gets over his obsession with Sammy. Since there was no act, no crime can be proven.
On the other hand, suppose that Jimmy Bob and Sammy are best friends. They do everything together and have never even spoken a harsh word to each other. One day, while driving with extreme caution, Jimmy Bob’s motor scooter goes out of control due to a lodged gas pedal and in a cruel irony, he runs over Sammy, killing him. Since the accident occurred without any intent, no crime occurred.
Both the act and the intent must be present for an accused to be charged with a crime.
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…
We assume that because we have a justice system, it is “systematic.” By that we mean, using the machine as a model, we expect that all parts work together toward a common result. We assume that we are all in agreement and meshing in a well-oiled way at all levels and functions of the system. We assume a consensus model, which we’ll examine below. Of course, a little observation quickly derails this concept. We know that there are pervasive conflicts in our way of doing justice. In fact, it was designed to be an adversary system, not a consensus system; therefore, we are often forced into conflict.
At the legislative end of the system, the great debates over drugs, guns, abortion, the death penalty, technology, security, and a host of other concerns, are routine. Budgets are fought over. Policies are implemented, defeated, and changed. At the judicial end, the same arguments rage throughout the highest courts and into the lowest. In the executive branch, where police and prosecution functions occur, the policies and decisions of the other branches of government can be resisted, disregarded, challenged, and otherwise put down. In corrections, errors in policies, prosecution, and enforcement become painfully apparent.
There are little empires to be protected and turfs to be safeguarded within our “system” of justice. There is a lack of cooperation, and often there is secrecy between agencies and subcomponents.
Remember, justice is not fairness. What we get out of the non-system is not only unfair at times, but may also be unjust. Errors are made, biases interfere with good judgment, and ideologies warp the outcome of trials and prosecutions. I don’t think the system is a disaster, but I do think we must strive for the best possible outcome based on the ideal.
Dr. David Struckoff, Ph.D.
Criminal Justice Instructor
Ashworth University School of Legal Studies
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.
Subscribe to Feed
