Posts tagged crime

Lawyers for Juvenile Lifers Convicted of Murder Urge Supreme Court to Overturn Sentences

Lawyers for two prisoners sentenced to life in prison for murders committed when they were age 14 are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to accept their cases and strike down their sentences as unconstitutional.

The lawyers want the Supreme Court to extend its Graham v. Florida decision that held unconstitutional life sentences for juveniles who were convicted of crimes other than murder, the New York Times reports. The lawyers say life sentences without parole should be banned for all offenders who were 13 and 14 when they committed their crimes. VIA

This is a big deal since it will force us to determine what to do with juvenile offenders when we can’t just lock them away forever. Perhaps returning to the original purpose of juvenile courts over 100 years ago, which was to provide rehabilitation and guidance will be part of the solution. Putting them in prison for life is cruel and unusual punishment based on lack of cognitive development, maturity and/or deficiencies (which leans to culpably). Once a process is in place for juveniles, maybe it will be one that can extend and be adjusted for adults as well…years down the road.

Fighting Crime by Reading Minds

“How far out is P300 as a viable law enforcement tool? Maybe not too far, judging by the company the researchers behind the new study have been keeping. Rosenfeld says the work was funded by the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment — part of the Department of Defense — which trains federal polygraph operators. (…)  Rosenfeld counters that in some cases, the civil liberties of suspects will in fact benefit, since a painless but comparatively reliable way of getting at the truth makes it harder to justify harsh interrogation techniques.”


 

Re: neuroscience as evidence and offender culpability

Ignoring the original/sensational headline of “creating” a killer, and focusing on degrees, factors and potential genetic predispositions leading to violent behavior, neurolaw is expected to be a revolutionary area to address evidence, culpability and sentencing. It’s not about medicalizing crime, it’s investigating behaviors and risk.

“Something like in 1,200 cases, neuroscience evidence has been presented. (…) In 2006, Bradley Waldroup got into a fight with his wife and his wife’s friend, who was there, ended up killing his wife’s friend, a woman, shooting her eight times, going after her with a machete and then going after his own wife with a machete. So it was really, really gruesome - his four kids were watching this all go on.

And the prosecutors - it was pretty, kind of an open-and-shut case.The prosecutors asked for the death penalty. But unfortunately for them, the judge let in evidence about Bradley Waldroup’s genes (…) And so what the defense attorneys did, not only analyze him but also genotype him to look for guess what?  the warrior gene. It turns out that Bradley Waldroup has the high-risk version of the warrior gene. And in court, William Burnette argued that while the gene didn’t make him more violent, it increased the chances of him being more violent or snapping.

I talked to several jurors, and they said, “now, look, the genes weren’t the only thing that we considered, but it was one factor”; and instead of giving him the death penalty, as the prosecutors asked for, they gave him voluntary manslaughter.

…You know, alcoholism makes your brain different. It gives you kind of brain abnormalities. Does that mean that an alcoholic who kills someone while driving drunk should suddenly be able to argue hey, my brain made me do it, therefore I’m not as culpable. This my brain made me do it, my genes made do it, it’s going to really challenge our legal system.”



econ-lite: Love this cover of The Economist this week. The leader:Rough JusticeAmerica locks up too  many people, some for acts that should not even be criminal The Special report:Too many laws, too many prisoners

econ-lite:

Love this cover of The Economist this week.

The leader:
Rough Justice
America locks up too  many people, some for acts that should not even be criminal

The Special report:
Too many laws, too many prisoners

High-end Prostitution Ring Operated Out Of Jersey City Starbucks

negevrockcity:

…This turns out to be the same Starbucks that I work out of two or three times a week. The best part? It was busted by an undercover ICE officer posing as a corrupt Jersey City cop!

yup! Sounds about right— I’m only surprised she gave up so much info so easy. Although, that’s probably the best method of undercover -posing as a corrupt cop.

eastvillagefeed: NYPost: Cops seek ‘Catwoman’ female robber who knocked off Astor Place ‘Arche’ shoe store economic adverbs. so it’s scampered if less than $100, and fled if $500 or more. got it.

eastvillagefeed:

NYPost: Cops seek ‘Catwoman’ female robber who knocked off Astor Place ‘Arche’ shoe store

economic adverbs. so it’s scampered if less than $100, and fled if $500 or more. got it.

Of course, calling something a war crime doesn’t make it so–the question is whether it is recognized as such under international law–and your question raises a broader concern and reflects the deeply disturbing approach of the United States to the laws of war since 9/11. The U.S. has put forward the novel theory of a brand new “law of 9/11” under which it can sidestep the laws of war or re-interpret them when it suits. This approach is no doubt appealing and convenient in the short term. But it will inevitably return to bite the U.S., and will undermine the international legal framework on which the U.S. relies in so many other contexts. In this particular instance, if the U.S. were to insist that use of lethal force in an armed conflict by a civilian who is a citizen of another country is a “war crime” just because that person is a civilian, it won’t have a leg to stand on if another state prosecutes a CIA agent involved in the drone killing program on exactly the same grounds.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, NYU law professor Philip G. Alston (via aatombomb)

Like a lot of problems we try to legislate away- too broad is arbitrary upon enforcement or counterproductive, too narrow can be useless or discriminatory. There is rarely “baby bear porridge” in law.

Teens Sentenced to Perform Shakespeare

nineteencaprices:

Wow…that’s pretty awesome :D

“The show is the culmination of a five-week intensive program called Shakespeare in the Courts, a nationally recognized initiative now celebrating its 10th year. Berkshire Juvenile Court Judge Judith Locke has sent these adjudicated offenders — found guilty of such adolescent crimes as fighting, drinking, stealing, and destroying property — not to lockup or conventional community service, but to four afternoons a week of acting exercises, rehearsal, and Shakespearean study.”

May 17th: “the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime. The ruling creates a new categorical rule that invalidates Joe Sullivan’s sentence to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime at age 13.”

May 17th: “the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime. The ruling creates a new categorical rule that invalidates Joe Sullivan’s sentence to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime at age 13.”

Murder: New York City

An interactive map where you can cruise the time line and zoom in for homicide stats.

Crime stats don't support Arizona law

trecs:

High levels of illegal immigration and crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants are among the key rationales cited by some supporters of a tough new immigration law in Arizona.

A new phrase has entered the criminological lexicon: the “CSI effect” after shows such as “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation”. In 2008 Monica Robbers, an American criminologist, defined it as “the phenomenon in which jurors hold unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence and investigation techniques, and have an increased interest in the discipline of forensic science.”

Exposure to television drama series that focus on forensic science has altered the American legal system in complex and far-reaching ways.

Jurors think they have a thorough understanding of science they have seen presented on television, when they do not. Mr Durnal cites one case of jurors in a murder trial who, having noticed that a bloody coat introduced as evidence had not been tested for DNA, brought this fact to the judge’s attention. Since the defendant had admitted being present at the murder scene, such tests would have thrown no light on the identity of the true culprit. The judge observed that, thanks to television, jurors knew what DNA tests could do, but not when it was appropriate to use them.

Prosecutors in the United States are now spending much more time explaining to juries why certain kinds of evidence are not relevant. Prosecutors have even introduced a new kind of witness—a “negative evidence” witness—to explain that investigators often fail to find evidence at a crime scene.

Forensic science: The “CSI effect” | The Economist (via greguti)
kidaokagee: James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990 - 12 February 1993), a two-year-old child from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, was abducted, tortured and murdered. The perpetrators were two 10-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables, (born 13 August 1982). Bulger disappeared on 12 February 1993 from the New Strand Shopping Centre, Bootle, while accompanying his mother, and his mutilated body was found on a railway line in nearby Walton on 14 February. Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with the abduction and murder. Thompson and Venables were found guilty of the murder of Bulger on 24 November 1993, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history. They were sentenced to custody until they reached adulthood, initially until the age of 18, and were released on lifelong licence in June 2001. The case has prompted widespread debate on the issue of how to handle young offenders when they are sentenced or released from custody. source …and we still don’t know how to handle young offenders when they are sentenced or released from custody.  Maybe there shouldn’t be an over arching answer when dealing with youths, unless it’s case by case one with as many options as possible.

kidaokagee:

James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990 - 12 February 1993), a two-year-old child from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, was abducted, tortured and murdered. The perpetrators were two 10-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables, (born 13 August 1982). Bulger disappeared on 12 February 1993 from the New Strand Shopping Centre, Bootle, while accompanying his mother, and his mutilated body was found on a railway line in nearby Walton on 14 February. Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with the abduction and murder.

Thompson and Venables were found guilty of the murder of Bulger on 24 November 1993, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history. They were sentenced to custody until they reached adulthood, initially until the age of 18, and were released on lifelong licence in June 2001. The case has prompted widespread debate on the issue of how to handle young offenders when they are sentenced or released from custody.

source

…and we still don’t know how to handle young offenders when they are sentenced or released from custody.  Maybe there shouldn’t be an over arching answer when dealing with youths, unless it’s case by case one with as many options as possible.