- White Supremacist Joins Black Gang Member To Peddle #Meth. #Random http://t.co/0mPOBzNc
- Man Sues Uncle For Tagging Him In 'Embarrassing' Childhood Photo On Facebook. #Random http://t.co/9Jf06y0Z
- Bride Postpones Wedding So Pet Lizard Can Get Chemotherapy . #Random http://t.co/XgfH0NdX
- Man Stabbed Friend During Argument Over Who Has The Most Sex. #Random http://t.co/JuDKMab6
- Man's #Facebook Post Gets Turned Into An Ad For 55 Gallons Of 'Personal Lubricant'. #Random http://t.co/TitBFUlI #Humor
- Funniest 420 - #Chronic Awareness Day 911 Calls. #Random http://t.co/QEDPKSgy #Funny
- Police Standoff With #Florida Man Ends When He Awakens From Drunken Stupor. #Random http://t.co/DvTMktg7
- Man Sues Porn Star For Not Following Him On Twitter. #Random http://t.co/k5aKB69r
- Women Attack Bar Employees With Knife After Their Offer To Show Boobs For Beer Is Rejected. #Random http://t.co/SYCxTj7d
- Florida Man Tries To Rob #Store With His Finger. #Random http://t.co/e0RRcx0a
Trayvon Martin – Race, Politics and the Media
I kept thinking about at what angle I was going to blog the Trayvon Martin case. I could not think of an angle by which to approach it that has not been already done and thankfully, I could not find one. I say thankfully because that means that the community, bloggers and the media have really come together getting this story the attention that it really requires. If you are not familiar with Trayvon’s case, I’m not sure where you’ve been hiding but you can read the story on the CNN website.
What I decided that I’d do is address some questions that I have been asked about the case in an attempt to clear up any misconceptions that some people may have about some of the particulars, so, here goes….
Why did Zimmerman have a gun on him in the first place? The shortest answer to that is, because he can. Florida is a conceal and carry state, the 2nd amendment gives people the right to bear arms, so Zimmerman did not need a particular reason to be in possession of a weapon.
Isn’t Trayvon’s case reason enough that the President should push for tougher gun control laws? Absolutely not. Tougher gun control laws will do nothing to get guns off the street. Stricter gun control laws just make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain a weapon. Criminals don’t give a damn about the law and if the criminals want guns, they will get them. If gun control laws are further tightened, it will inhibit the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families.
Zimmerman has a violent past, how did he get a gun in the first place? The best answer that I have for this is, according to my research, Zimmerman has never been convicted of a felony, of anything for that matter. When a background check is done, anything information that the gun shop obtains is all what is available in the public record. A person with a history of mental illness can even get a gun as long as their mental illness does not show up as a matter of public record. HIPAA protects a person’s medical information from being made public, so unless a person’s mental illness has landed a person in court for something, it will not show up on the background check.
Can’t they just charge Zimmerman with a hate crime? If the FBI deems that on the 911 audio that Zimmerman indeed called 
Trayvon a “Fucking Coon”, then yes. I have heard the audio and I believe that was the comment that Zimmerman made, however, it would not be up to what I or you think, it will come down to what the jury thinks.
A hate crime conviction is not a “cure all”, the maximum penalty for a hate crime used to be 3 years in prison. Since the passage of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 249, also known as the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act , the maximum penalty has been raised to 10 years.
What about those kids in Mississippi, they got life in prison for a hate crime? No, they did plead guilty to a hate crime but they got life in prison for the murder they committed. If you are unfamiliar with the Mississippi case, read it here.
Can the NRA be sued for the “Stand Your Ground” law? No. The stand your ground law is not actually a bad law if you are a proponent of the 2nd amendment. The law states:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Zimmerman is no how, in no way, covered by the “Stand Your Ground” law, recently, Zimmerman’s attorney has even come forward to admit that the law does not apply to Zimmerman. Click here to read remarks by Zimmerman’s lawyer.
What I really think is interesting is that this case is being viewed from all sides as a racially motivated “white on black crime”. In these times when racial discourse is used to increase media readership, there is little mention of the fact that Zimmerman’s father is white but his mother is Latina. It is also not hitting the forefront of the media that Zimmerman’s family is not without African American’s.
Why does my observation matter? To me, it matters only in the respect that in a multi-cultural society, like the one in which we live, there is still a need to categorize people on one side or the other of the black and white line, regardless of their true ethnicity. Don’t get me wrong, I think that Zimmerman should be charged and that the judicial system needs to handle this, so I am glad that the case has gotten the attention that it needs to make people sweat and to begin moving in the right direction. I can’t help but wonder, however, if the case would have reached the same fever pitch that it has if Zimmerman had been reported as being Latino instead of white.
One could argue that institutional racism was in full effect since the white police chief chose to conduct a half assed investigation and call the case a wrap, but then how does one explain the African American city manager? The African American city manager has the power to fire the police chief and chose not to do so. I have to wonder, how much institutional racism played into this tragedy in comparison to how many people were willing to sweep Trayvon’s death under the rug in order to protect their own political careers?
I think that there are so many sociological factors involved in this case that down the line, I expect for Trayvon’s case to turn up in criminal justice and sociology textbooks.
At the end of the day, regardless as to who is what ethnicity and who has what job, I do think that Zimmerman needs to be charged and brought to justice. It is my prediction that he will be charged and the first motion that his lawyer will file, will be a motion for a change of venue.
From The Classroom To The Cellblock – The School To Prison Pipeline
With all of the recent publicity surrounding the current state of public schools in major cities, I have been meaning to write this piece for the last few weeks but just keep getting sidetracked. I am not one to jump on just any old bandwagon that passes my door nor am I a devout conspiracy theorist but recently I have heard and read up on some information that is, without a doubt, food for serious thought.
Some countries used to decide what occupation a person would enter by using a standardized test. What you scored on that test would determine what occupation a person was going to do to earn a living. If a person scored high enough, they would be allowed to receive higher education and enter into a professional arena. If they scores were not high enough then the test taker would be remanded to a life of manual labor. I am beginning to think that we are doing something very similar in the U.S. but using a different method.
28 states have passed legislation to allow for the existence of privatized prisons. Those are prisons that are not state owned or state funded per se however they are allowed to bill the state or federal government for the care of the inmates. Many of these corporations are now planning how many more prisons they will need to build based on 3rd and 4th grade reading scores as there has been a direct link established between lack of education and the crime rate. Most inmates do not possess a high school diploma upon their entry into the penal system.
That said, I think that there is a weeding out process taking place in the public school systems in most cities. Classrooms are overcrowded, students are exhibiting negative and sometimes dangerous behaviors and many public schools have cut funding for advanced placement programs to try and meet the educational need. This weeding out process allows for some children to be voluntarily bussed to suburban schools to receive an education. For those children who are not bussed but show some sign of academic promise, there is the opportunity for them to test and then be placed in a lottery system to attend a magnet or charter school. Some of the magnet and charter schools are funded by the public school systems and some are private. Along with the students that are going to the magnet or charter schools, so are some of the best teachers. They are going to the magnet and charter schools because the class sizes are smaller and they are less dangerous. Many of the teachers who have transferred believe that it gives them a better opportunity to educate. Finally there is the option of attending a parochial school, there are scholarships available for those whose families cannot afford tuition.
Now, lets step back and take a look at this, you start with a school system that has good teachers and educable students, start taking the “best” of the students and the teachers and filter them out, leaving the “rest” in the pubic school system. Many of those who are left eventually drop out and end up where…you guessed it, in prison.
It’s a known fact that slave labor was used in the U.S. because it was inexpensive. When that was no longer legal, many businesses and corporations began using inexpensive immigrant labor or shipping their industrial work to countries where workers get paid pennies on the dollar and the company can still receive tax incentives. Enter the prison systems, public and private. The average inmate makes approximately $15.00 every two weeks working a job at the prison during their incarceration, that’s $30.00 per month to manufacture goods that are then resold by large companies.
Some companies that benefit from the use of prison labor include Chevron, IBM, Victoria’s Secret, Texas Instruments, Honeywell and Motorola. The federal prison system trades under the name Unicor but the private prisons stand to benefit the most from inmate labor because they get first crack at the contracts since they have to raise most of their operating costs on their own.
In my opinion, we have managed to create a new type of “involuntary servitude” or “slavery” if you will. Most of the immigrants and overseas employees are making more than thirty dollars a month so it’s actually less expensive for those companies to contract with prisons to make their goods. I think that the “system” has found a way to isolate those who are the most “at risk”, under-serve them by “educating” them in crowded classes, sub par building conditions with ill equipped teachers with the hopes that the data remains correct, those who do not complete high school are more likely to transition into the prison system.
I completely understand that committing a crime and going to prison is a choice that’s made by a person but face it, many kids are raising themselves, baited by the temptation of “fast money” and in some other cases, trying to help support the family. Those are not always the case with someone who is doing time but the reality still exists big business stands to profit in a big way on the backs of undereducated people, especially minority men.
I can’t say that if was not for inmate labor that those jobs would be available to the American worker because it’s obvious that big business will find cheap labor but I do struggle with the idea that certain groups are singled out to self distruct. It’s almost seems as if a family is not able to get their child into one of the funnels that takes them into an alternative school setting that those children end up in a whole different funnel and that funnel leads to $30.00 per month. Hence all of the lobbying that states and large corporations do to ensure access to privatized prisons.
So, what say you? Do you think that disallowing big business to partake in the benefits of inmate labor further put our “at risk” youth more at risk than they started out or are some of these links sheer coincidence? Second question is, would big businesses be as motivated to USE inmate labor if they had to relinquish a percentage of their profit and donate it to the local public school systems?
If you want to read more about this, I found a really good article on the use of prison labor and the economic impact it has on society. Prison Labor Cheats Society
Originally Posted 9/28/09
How Necessary Is It To Require A Background Check To Buy A Handgun?
Gun-Rights advocates in Virginia are gearing up to challenge the current background check requirement to purchase a handgun. Gun-Rights advocate want to loosen criteria that are a part of the criminal background check. Here’s the gist of the article I read:
Virginia’s criminal background check system for gun purchases, the first of its kind in the nation, is being targeted for elimination, reports the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot. Gun-rights advocates have lobbied Gov. Bob McDonnell to scrap the program, arguing that it is redundant because a federal background check system can replace it. Gun-control groups say doing so would take a valuable law enforcement tool away from state police and undermine state gun laws.
Efforts to cancel the state’s 22-year-old background check system, known as the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program, could be debated in the coming legislative Assembly session. Republicans will control state government for the first time since 2001 and a push to loosen state gun laws is expected. Some of those supporting looser controls on guns are the National Rifle Association, which has urged Virginians to lobby McDonnell on background checks, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League. The original “long” article can be found HERE.
Source Article For Shortened Article
I am a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment which reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Findlaw)
Okay, so here’s my spin. The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricts gun ownership for the following groups:
- Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
- Fugitives from justice;
- Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
- Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
- Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
- Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
- Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
- Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
- Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (About.com)
I think that background checks to purchase a firearm actually infringes on the right of a U.S. citizen and is therefore a violation of the U.S. constitution. I know that statement sounds like I have lost my damned mind but rest assured, there is method to my madness.
A background check can locate information such as whether or not one has a felony conviction, if a person has specific kind of restraining order, if a court has ruled that a person has a mental disorder, one’s immigration as well as one’s citizenship status and one’s military discharge information. Although those seem like very valid issues to investigate, people who fall into those areas are still going to get a firearm if they wish to carry. The stipulations listed in the Gun Control Act only apply to weapons shops that sell their merchandise in accordance with the federal laws, not those who are involved in the illegal gun trade industry.
As far as mental illness is concerned, unless the court system has cause to document that one has a mental illness, one’s mental health status is not available though a standard background check. One of the reasons that one’s mental health status is not available in public record is the Health Insurance Privacy And Portability Act (HIPPA). HIPPA is very specific regarding the sharing of medical records, so if a person chooses to seek help for mental health issues or treatment for substance abuse, that information will not come back on the background check.
My point is, long story short, gun control laws technically only apply to law abiding citizens. those who don’t meet the criteria for legal possession of a firearm, will find other means to purchase a weapon and live their life in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, it’s my belief that gun control laws restrict the rights of those who follow the law and will have no bearing on the person who carries an illegal weapon unless they are caught.
Tell me what you think…..
Should Coverage of Criminal Cases Focus on Defendant or Victim?
I was doing some research for my homework when I ran across this article and I think that it raises a very good question, should the media coverage of criminal cases focus on the defendant? Legal journalist Robin Barton has this to say:
To describe the recent U.S. and international media coverage of the Amanda Knox case in Italy as intense would be an understatement. One of the key criticisms of this coverage was that it primarily focused on the defendants—or at least one of them—with the victim, Meredith Kercher, almost forgotten.
So that raises the question: when covering criminal cases, should the focus be on the defendant or the victim?
To review: Knox, or “Foxy Knoxy” and “Angel Face” as she was dubbed in the press, and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were convicted of killing Kercher, Knox’s roommate, on Nov. 1, 2007, in a drug-fueled sex game gone bad. At the time of the killing, Knox was 20 years old.
But their convictions were overturned on appeal.
During both the original trial and the appeal, Kercher’s family rightfully pointed out that the victim had essentially been “forgotten.” As her sister Stephanie said, “There are no photos of Meredith in the papers or on the TV—it’s all on Amanda and Raffaele.”
However, being the focus of the media cuts both ways. While the press in the U.S. largely sided with Knox, the media in the U.K. and Italy were much harder on her.
British journalists were obviously more sympathetic to Kercher because she was British. As for the Italian press, the media there have a different approach to criminal trials.
As an American journalist writing for the Guardian noted, investigative journalism isn’t practiced in Italy as it is in the U.S. or Great Britain. And, the journalist noted, Italian reporters may have been afraid that if they deviated from the prosecutor’s version of the events, they’d be arrested or harassed by the police—which actually happened.
The Knox case is hardly the first in which the attention has been on the defendant rather than the victim.
The O.J. Simpson case is a good example. Most people probably know that one victim was the former football star’s ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. But how many can name the male victim? (It was Ron Goldman.)
Frustration with the criminal trial and its outcome eventually led Goldman’s family to set up the Ronald Goldman Foundation to assist people who’ve been victims of crime and their families.
The Phil Spector case is another example. Spector was convicted of shooting actress Lana Clarkson to death in a game of Russian roulette. Articles on the case nearly always mention Spector’s career as a music producer and some of the famous musicians he worked with, such as the Beatles, Tina and Ike Turner and the Ronettes. The victim’s name was included almost as an afterthought.
Of course, the O.J. and Spector cases involved celebrities. And when celebrities are involved in a criminal case, rightfully or wrongly, they become the focus—whether they’re the victim or the defendant.
In fact, such cases likely get a lot of press coverage in the first place because someone famous is involved.
But celebrity wasn’t an issue in the Knox case. Everyone involved was unknown before the crime. So why did Knox become a cause célèbre for the media? Was it simply because she was a young, attractive American in a foreign land?
Or were claims that the crime was the product of a sex game too titillating to ignore?
I think a key factor in the media’s focus on Knox was the fact that her family was a very vocal advocate for her, which in turn drove a lot of the coverage.
While Kercher’s family kept a fairly low profile, Knox’s parents hired a public relations firm, which arranged for them to appear regularly on U.S. morning talk shows and news programs.
I’d also like to think that part of the appeal for journalists was that this case arguably involved innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of a crime they didn’t commit. Certainly, much of the American media coverage of the case during the appeal suggested that an injustice had been done when Knox and Sollecito were initially convicted.
I don’t think there is a right answer as to where the focus should be when covering a criminal trial.
Every case is unique. And although crime victims deserve to be remembered, innocent defendants also have a right to have their stories told. At the end of the day, the focus of the coverage will likely be on the aspects of the case that interest the public the most.
Robin L. Barton, a legal journalist based in Brooklyn, NY, is a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and a regular blogger for The Crime Report.
Although the article discusses the question, I think that the fact that the question even came up tells us that courtroom media has changed the scope of how criminal trials are conducted. The media’s job is to find the most “entertaining” aspect of a trial, whereas the court’s obligation is to make sure that all of the evidence is presented within the manner prescribed by law and to make sure the constitutional rights of the accused are not violated.
I say that to say, the media is not concerned about where the focus should be, they tend to take the side of the person whose story is the most interesting. I am glad that the victim is not forgotten in the media but the media is the outlet that is responsible to disseminate information to the court of public opinion. I think that the trial focus needs to be on the offender and less on the victim, the victim is not on trial and shifting the focus from the suspect and the victim can greatly jeopardize one’s chance to a fair trial under the constitution.
Tell me, what do you think?
Policy Change Now Permits Guns on Fallwell’s Liberty University Campus
I’m not sure how I feel about this yet. I am a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment and I believe in our right to bare arms, but if students feel as if they need to carry guns, then it seems to me that security is failing miserably.
Liberty University has liberalized its gun policy to allow visitors, students and staff who have concealed weapons permits to carry guns on campus, reports the Lynchburg, Va., News & Advance. The policy, announced to students this week, replaces a complete ban of firearms on university grounds. Visitors are now permitted to store their weapons in locked cars, while students can apply for permission from campus police to carry a gun on the outdoor grounds or in a locked car. Guns in campus buildings are generally prohibited, although the policy permits some faculty and staff to carry weapons inside buildings with permission by campus police.
Liberty now has the most lenient firearms policy among local colleges and universities. Liberty Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. said the new policy will enhance campus safety while increasing convenience for visitors and students who have the proper permits. Richard Hinkley, Liberty’s chief of police, said while he supports the policy, it has raised some concerns among his officers. Lifting Liberty’s firearms ban has been a hot-button issue in recent years, especially after the Virginia Tech massacre in April 2008 that left 33 dead. A small but vocal band of LU students who align with the activist group, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, raised the issue with the student government association at least two times in the past three years.
Source Article
My Random World & Penn. State Rant … *Cough*
Ugh, I hate being sick when I have homework to get done, laundry to do and have a house to clean. Oh well, like I tell other people to do, I’ll just suck it up, buttercup and put my big girl panties on to deal with the world =)
Oh, before I get started on my mindless rambling, there are new photos in the gallery…. enjoy.
Okay, I have been asked what my thoughts were on the whole Sandusky (Penn State) issue. I know that I have refrained from talking about it and I think it’s because I just think that everybody and their momma is on some kind of bandwagon. I finally decided that I can give my own 2 cents without it getting too wordy, drawn out or rehashed.
I loathe people who mistreat children, that said, Sandusky needs to just face his charges like the man he’d like be and be accountable for his behavior. As far as Paterno goes, he did what he had to do legally (I’ll get to all of that in a second), he failed miserably as a human being (as far as I’m concerned) by allowing those vile acts of human suffering to continue on his watch. Paterno is morally, socially and humanly bankrupt and I’m sure hell has a special place all picked out. He sold his soul for the all mighty dollar, and at 80 years old, his dance with the devil may come a lot sooner than his repentance. Paterno is, however going to have to testify and that’s on him, he gets no sympathy from me (like he gives a damn right?).
On to Mike McQuery … He’s got a seat reserved in hell that is even deeper than Paterno’s. McQuery saw the rape of a kid, and had the nerve to say ”I did stop it, not physically … but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room … I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police …. no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds … trust me.” Source Article
I hope McQuery doesn’t hope any of us (especially me) feels sorry for him. It was mighty right of him to make sure the RAPE had concluded before he left the locker room. *Rolls Eyes*. It’s still up in the air as who who he told, if anyone…. so for now, I am content to think that he’s lower than rat sh!t …… I’m sure I can think of other things to call him as the story progresses….
The ONLY positive thing that I can see coming out of this WHOLE thing, may be the better protection of Pennsylvania children. Back in the early days of the U.S., children were treated as property or “little adults” instead of children who are in need of protection under the law. In at least 40 other U.S. states, mandated reporters of child abuse are required to call the child abuse hotline and report the incident, unless the policy where they work says differently (like report it to the supervisor and the supervisor makes the call). Pennsylvania’s law only requires that abuse be reported to one’s immediate supervisor. Makes me wonder, how many other abused children are there out there whose cases have gone without being addressed. I would hope that this situation has shed some light on the piss poor laws that Pennsylvania has regarding the protection or lack thereof, of children. It’s just very sad that it took a case of this magnitude to bring attention to their child protection laws, but I hope that when (and I’m sure it will happen) the laws change, that they will better work for the protection of children instead of in the interest of those who abuse them.
Below is a list of mandated reporters in the state of New York (source), this list is pretty typical of all states with a mandated reporter law:
Oh and before I forget, New York is a state that has introduced a bill in legislation to add coaches to this list, I lump them in with school personnel such as teachers but whatever it takes to get the job done.
You Down With O.C.D? Yeah You Know Me…..
Okay, so a while back I blogged bout my obsession with school…. I think I did anyway, if I didn’t….if you don’t know, now you know, as Biggie would say.
Anyhew, I tend to set my bar pretty high. I am the chronic overachiever, it’s who I am and I’ve learned to embrace that……..for the most part. This session, I am taking a class in Comparative Criminal Justice. The objective of the class is to study the criminal justice systems of other countries and at some point, in a final research paper, compare one of our choice to the United States criminal justice system.
This week, up for discussion (this class is online), we have a question that reads “Are there any situations in which it might be permissible or even necessary to hold a U. S. citizen in custody without recourse to the judicial system? Provide examples of those situations.”
Now, before I show my O.C.D. (I know you’re dying to see it), this is a graduate school level class, there is supposed to be some form of independent thinking going on here……maybe that’s the overachiever in me, who knows?
Okay, back to the question, this is a COMPARATIVE class, where we look at criminal justice systems world wide….tonight, I read post, after post, after post, going on and on about how our constitution does not allow anyone (other than the unlawful enemy combatants) to be held without access to the judicial system. Maybe it’s me but I didn’t see anything in that question that says specifically, the U.S. citizen is being held on U.S. soil!! This is a COMPARATIVE…. compare something!!
I know that it sounds really, super simple but I am completely annoyed at the fact that people won’t think or feel the need to take the “easy” way out. Their “easy way” is starting to become an epic waste of my time for the week. This class is not designed to be simple, but it’s not rocket science either.
I really think that at the graduate level, people should be beyond the hand holding thing. I don’t think that we should have to have rudimentary instructions for us to be able to apply the concept of the class to the question being answered. So, I try and hop in and redirect by saying:
“That said, for me, there are two things missing from this question, the first is, where is the U.S. citizen being held, are we purely discussing a citizen held here in America without recourse or are we talking about an American being held abroad? The second thing that was missing for me, was “held for how long?”
I am going to fill in my own blanks, per se and answer the question like this, yes, there are some times when it is permissible to hold a U.S. citizen in custody without recourse to the judicial system.
The text states that Great Britain has the most stringent policy antiterrorism laws among any advanced democracy (Reichel, 2008, p. 95)
Britain’s antiterrorism laws allow Britain to hold suspected terrorists for up to 28 days (maximum), without being charged, pending investigation (Reichel, 2008, p. 96). Opponents to this policy, claim that the detention time is too long, while proponents had, at one time, argued that the time should be extended to 3 months.
So, it goes without saying (but I’m going to say it anyway), that a U.S. citizen, detained in Britain, under suspicion of terrorism, could spend a maximum of 28 days in custody without recourse to the judicial system.”
Now we’re moving forward…….so I thought. The responses I got were “Great way to look at it, thanks for the unique perspective.” Seriously? All I can do is take my O.C.D. and their case of group-think and hope that my O.C.D. doesn’t kick the sh!t out of their one track thinking.
I really do like this class, it’s challenging and what it’s challenging the most, is my patience…….
So, I Gave A Lecture At STLCC Yesterday…..
Well it seems like I recovered from my melt down the other day. Yesterday, I spoke at one of the Community College campus’s to a juvenile justice class. I lectured on the new issues and trends in juvenile justice.
One thing that I got a lot of time to talk about is how the age of technology is making legislators rethink current policies as they relate to the online distribution of child pornography by minors.
The core issue is that prior to the age of camera phone, iPhones, pads, Blackberry’s and so on, the only way to distribute pictures was to have them developed and mailed. Young people were not engaging in that kind of activity, as it took time and money, but now, with the convenience of picture phones and smart phones, anything is a go…..
The gist of my lecture is that many states are just now beginning to introduce legislation to deal with child pornography created by minors, distributed by minors and received by minors. Prior to some of the recent legislation, minors were held under the same child pornography statues as adults. The creation, distribution and receipt of child pornography would, in fact still be a felony for minors and and they would have to place their name on the sex offender registry, just as an adult.
Many states are seeing the felony and the registry component as being too severe for minors, as both of those entities would follow a minor into his or her adult life. so many states have passed laws decreasing the penalties for minors to a misdemeanor and no registry addition. Although, this is a lesser charge, a misdemeanor is still punishable by up to one year in jail and a wide range of fines.
We discussed the issues as to how state, local and federal governments were going to assign jurisdiction over such cases and the whole nine yards.
The reference point for the conversation was an analysis of the topic as brought to light but the video of a 14-year old girl who was recorded performing oral sex on her boyfriend, that recently went viral as well as the concept of “sexting”.
At the beginning, many people were prepared to disengage. Some had their heads on their desks, other people where chillin with their iPods and so on… it wasn’t intimidating as much as I thought it rude. I was able to use humor to redirect that behavior and get everyone focused. Once that happened, the lecture went very well. The class asked great questions and the more we got into the topic, the more they opened up and discussed how they think the law should handle these situations.
Overall it was a great class and my mentor may have an opportunity for me to help write an Introduction To Criminal Justice textbook…that would be AWESOME!!
Is Locking Up Elderly Inmates An Unnecessary Public Expense?
I thought that this article was super interesting because it substantiates an argument that I have had with opponents of the death penalty. At one time, it used to cost the state more to execute an inmate than it took to house them for life. However, since offenders are receiving longer sentences, the criminal justice system now has to start making preparations to deal with progressive diseases such as Alzheimer’s, advanced issues pertaining to diabetes, cardiac issues, HIV/AIDS and hepatitis, just to name a few. Some states are even having to create institutions that are very similar to nursing homes. In the prison industry, and elderly inmate is one over the age of 55. Enough of my banter, here is the article:
Yohannes Johnson, 55, serving 75 years to life in an upstate New York prison, heads the Lifer’s and Long-Termer’s Organization, part of a growing club of inmates locked up for life nationwide, reports the Associated Press. Corrections officials are considering different options for older inmates while some research suggests keeping them locked up until they die might be an expensive and unnecessary price for the public to pay. Nationally, nearly 10 percent of more than 2.3 million inmates were serving life sentences in 2008, including 41,095 people doing life without parole, up 22 percent in five years, says The Sentencing Project, which advocates alternatives to prison.
“The theme is we’re protecting society, then the question is: From what?” said Soffiyah Elijah of the Correctional Association of New York, a watchdog group. She said with the cost of keeping a state inmate $55,000 a year – a cost that grows as they age and their medical needs increase – a financial analysis shows that parole and probation are far cheaper punishments that can also satisfy the public need for retribution. Data show new crimes by convicted felons steadily declining from their teens through their dotage. “What kind of treatment programs should we be considering for the offenders who have a sentence of life without parole, or enter the system with sentences of 50 years to life?” New York Corrections Commissioner Brian Fischer asked on the 40th anniversary of the deadly riots at Attica, a maximum-security prison in New York State.
See The Crime Report’s series “The Graying of America’s Prisons” for more information.
Is Teen Violence Linked To Heavy Soda Drinking?
One of the people I follow on Twitter sent out a study that claims that there is a correlation between heavy soda drinking and teen violence. I am going to post the findings of the study because I think that it is an interesting read but that’s about it.
The study, conducted in Boston by French researchers, claims that “teen violence IS linked to heavy soda drinking”. The researchers make their claims based on the testing of Boston inner city students ages 14-18. The researchers admit that a bulk of the study was comprised of Black, Latino and bi-racial (black and white) children and contained little to no Asian or White students.
Some of you research and design guru’s out there can correct me, but it seems to me that if Asian and White students are not incorporated into the study, that it would be a bogus to assume that teen violence, as a whole, is linked to heavy soda drinking. Based on how the study was conducted, I would even be hesitant to claim that teen violence in minority youths is linked to heavy soda drinking as there was no control group to support that claim either.
Furthermore, the study was conducted via survey, which, for numerous reasons can be dicy in terms of the results. I think that the study is more of a foundation for more studies to be conducted on the topic.
The study authors concede that sodas are probably not the direct cause of the aggression, which isn’t saying much as this study was not in depth enough to render causation.
Here is the study:
PARIS — Researchers in the United States said on Tuesday they had found a ‘shocking’ association — if only a statistical one — between violence by teenagers and the amount of soda they drank.
High-school students in inner-city Boston who consumed more than five cans of non-diet, fizzy soft drinks every week were between nine and 15-percent likelier to engage in an aggressive act compared with counterparts who drank less.
‘What we found was that there was a strong relationship between how many soft drinks that these inner-city kids consumed and how violent they were, not only in violence against peers but also violence in dating relationships, against siblings,’ said David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health.
‘It was shocking to us when we saw how clear the relationship was,’ he told AFP in an interview.
But he stressed that only further work would confirm — or disprove — the key question whether higher consumption of sweet sodas caused violent behaviour.
The new study was based on answers to questionnaires filled out by 1,878 public-school students aged 14 to 18 in the inner Boston area, where Hemenway said crime rates were much higher than in the wealthier suburbs.
The overwhelming majority of respondents were Hispanic, African-American or mixed; few were Asian or white.
Among the questions were how much carbonated non-diet soft drink, measured in 12-ounce (355-millilitre) cans, the teens had drunk in the previous seven days.
They were also asked whether they drank alcohol or smoked, carried a weapon or showed violence towards peers, family members and partner.
What emerged, said Hemenway, was evidence of ‘dose response,’ in other words, the more soda was consumed, the likelier the tendency towards violence.
Among those who drank one or no cans of soft drink a week, 23 percent carried a gun or a knife; 15 percent perpetrated violence towards a partner; and 35 percent had been violent towards peers.
At the other end of the scale, among those who drank 14 cans a week, 43 percent carried a gun or a knife; 27 percent had been violent towards a partner; and more than 58 percent had been violent towards peers.
Overall, teens who were heavy consumers of sugary fizz were between nine and 15 percentage points likelier to show aggressive behaviour compared with low consumers, even when ethnicity and other confounding factors were taken into account.
This is a magnitude similar to the link found, in previously researched, with alcohol or tobacco.
Hemenway said the study had included a couple of questions aimed at taking a children’s home background into account, including whether the teen had taken a meal with his family in the previous days.
As it was only intended as a preliminary investigation, the questionnaire did not ask what kind of sodas the teens drank, he said.
‘This is one of the very first studies to examine’ the question, said Hemenway.
‘We don’t know why (there is this strong association). There may be some causal effect but it’s also certainly plausible that this is just a marker for other problems — that kids who are violent for whatever reason, they tend to smoke more, they tend to drink more alcohol and they tend to maybe drink more soft drinks. We just don’t know.
‘We want to look at it more carefully in following studies.’
The study, published in a British journal, Injury Prevention, will revive memories of the ‘Twinkie Defence,’ a US legal landmark in which a killer successfully argued that his behaviour had been swayed by eating junk food.
The defendant in this case, Dan White, had been charged with homicide. His lawyer’s successful pleading led to conviction of a lesser charge, of voluntary manslaughter.
Several studies elsewhere have established a link between very high sugar consumption and lack of social bonding or irritable and anti-social behaviour.
Some diet research has also pointed the finger at the lack of micro-nutrients as a source of aggression, but this work is still in its early stages.
