AU Blogspot

 
             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

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 lucas chimello simoes for permission to use this Photo. 

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

The Virginia Tech massacre shocked the nation and sparked a media firestorm looking for someone to blame, yet to those of us working in the criminal justice field, the bueracratic policies of a mental health system incapable of interpreting the warning signs exhibited by Seung Hui Cho, that horrible day represents one of many citizen time bombs that happened to go off.  Three months later, as the aftermath of analyses begin to materialize, the criminal justice community should be on alert regarding the proposal of reactive amendments to laws that are fundamentally flawed on an institutional level.  A friend of the AUCJ community, Emma at CrimePsych, reports that a review  of the Virginia Tech massacre have been published (download via Docuticker) prompting much commentary, including this detailed post over at World of Psychology, where John Grohol discusses the report (pdf) detailing mass murderer Seung Hui Cho’s mental health history.

Ronald Laitsch
Criminal Law and Procedure Instructor
Ashworth University

                  Thanks to Shizhao for permission to use this Photo.

This is not a blog where we reduce complex issues to talking points, a process that polarizes “thought” along political lines and inevitably leads to a state of “groupthink” irrationality.  I make this statement in order to provide context to the discussion at hand: Domestic Spying.  As you know, the expanded surveillance powers granted both federal and local government agencies such as FISA continues to fuel a political firestorm.  On one end, there are talking points that speak of Orwell and Fascism.  On the other end, you’ll hear talking points related to Terrorism and Safety in a “post 9/11 world.”  Can truth be found in either perspective?  Does reason exist somewhere between these arguments?  Perhaps the debate itself is completely misguided?  The following article from The Washington Post describes the new satellite technologies and tracking capabilities, traditionally reserved for the military sector—that will be available to law enforcement agencies in the immediate future.  Let’s open up an intelligent dialogue about this issue.  I look forward to hearing from you. 

Arthur Stein
Criminal Justice Program
Ashworth University