Regarding:
WILSON et al. v. LAYNE, DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL, et al.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 98-83. Argued March 24, 1999—Decided May 24, 1999
Identify which elements of this case fall under judicial review and judicial precedent.
In this case, in reference to the presence of the media in the execution of a warrant, I think the Court was trying to adhere to judicial precedent. But, at that time there were no similar cases that had been decided in the Supreme Court. The Court really had no reference to decide if the officers’ bringing in the media violated the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. In Wilson et al. v. Layne, Deputy United States Marshal, et al. it is stated that:
The Court of Appeals declined to decide whether the officers’ actions violated the Fourth Amendment, but concluded that because no court had held at the time of the search that media presence during a police entry into a residence constituted such a violation, the right allegedly violated was not “clearly established” and thus respondents were entitled to qualified immunity (1999).
As per judicial precedent, “under Bivens and the state officials under §1983” (Rehnquist, 1999), the plaintiffs were allowed to sue law enforcement for money. While law enforcement was entitled under a warrant to search the home, the reporters were not specifically mentioned in the warrant, and they did not help execute the warrant; therefore the plaintiff’s felt their Fourth Amendment rights were violated and sued the government.
As per judicial review, the officers were “granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights’ (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 [1982])” (Rehnquist, 1999). Basically, if a right is not pre-established by the Constitution, the government officials may be granted a qualified immunity.
The Court used its discretionary power given to them under Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137 [1803]), and exercised judicial review by acknowledging that having an agreement between law enforcement and the media for constructive purposes should not infringe on a person’s right to privacy in their own home.
Because there were no previous similar cases to refer to, the Court could not rely solely on judicial precedence; and so judicial review gives the power to the Court to define and decide the meaning of rights. The case of Wilson et al. v. Layne, Deputy United States Marshal, et al. is now a precedence of reference for similar cases. You cannot have one without the other; the Court needs judicial review in order to maintain judicial precedence.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Please Stand By Me
Do you ever have one of those moments, when you see something at exactly the right time? I am feeling lonely and sad... and lately I just need somebody to stand by me. My parents sent this video to me, and it is obvious that I am not alone in the world. I checked my email earlier at work today, but I decided not to watch the video at the time. I watched it when I got home, and, well.... I just had one of those moments.
What I am taking from this, is that no matter how lonely and sad I am, I know there are people all over the world that are feeling the same way. Sometimes we do not always have someone to stand by us when we need it the most, and sometimes the only thing we can do is belt out our heart's pain in song for all the world to hear.
Hey, World... Stand By Me!
What I am taking from this, is that no matter how lonely and sad I am, I know there are people all over the world that are feeling the same way. Sometimes we do not always have someone to stand by us when we need it the most, and sometimes the only thing we can do is belt out our heart's pain in song for all the world to hear.
Hey, World... Stand By Me!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Blahism: Criminal Justice Opinion Portfolio
Forward
Again, I was constrained by a word-count with this paper. The teacher wanted exactly one page per subject, even though I could have written a whole paper on each subject. But anyway, I got an "A" on this paper, too, but I feel I could have done better.
The Media, Crime, and Violence
Many people believe that the media are a cause of violence and crime, and others believe that they simply report what they see. In the history of man, there has always been violence. In the Bible Cain killed his own brother, Abel, because he was jealous, and then tried to lie about it. The Bible and other history books are full of the tales of violence that have defined human nature. As long as there has been violence, people want to know about it. The obsession of humans with the macabre could be our survival instincts at work. Being aware of danger can help us to avoid it.
I believe that there is violence regardless if there is a journalist there to cover the story. The media definitely capitalizes on gruesome details; the more shocking the piece is, the more viewers there will be. I do not believe that the media contributes to violence and crime, or is a cause of it. Informational websites, like The Smoking Gun (TSG), report on high profile cases and odd crime stories. Some people may believe that news sites like TSG inspire copycat criminals, but the same information available on TSG is reported in newspapers around the nation. If someone is going to commit a copycat crime then that is what they are going to do, regardless of where they heard the story. According to the Media Awareness Network, scientists revealed in “studies conducted in Australia, Finland, Poland, Israel, Netherlands and the United States” that in order for media violence to cause aggression in children, they must believe that the violent shows “portray life just as it is” (2008).
People should pay more attention to the rise in population in relation to violent crime; and they should also be looking at the discipline skills of the parents who are raising kids that end up violent offenders.
The Media and Anticrime Efforts
I do not believe that the use of the media to deter crime increases society’s fear of crime. The media is not a bona fide solution to crime deterrence, but I do believe that it is helpful in some situations. If anything, I feel that the media’s display of crime deterrence methods enables the people to safeguard themselves. People feel more confident if they have methods to turn to. For example, a woman walking to her car in a dark parking lot late at night might feel more comfortable after watching a news segment on how to prevent an attack, or how to defend herself from an attacker. Another good example of how the media can help deter crime is shows like America’s Most Wanted, and news casts that show video surveillance of crime, mug shots, or police sketches of suspects. This allows the community to get involved and help law enforcement solve cases and find criminals.
America’s Most Wanted is successful because the host, John Walsh has experienced what many families have suffered, the loss of a loved one. Because of that connection to the people, and because of lobbying efforts by John Walsh, many laws have been passed, and many criminals have been brought to justice. People like a happy ending just as much, if not more, than our natural morbid curiosity to see violence in the media. It is true that journalists and reporters can be invasive. If you or someone you love has been the victim of a violent attack, members of the media can seem annoying. There are some instances, however, when the media can be used as a crime fighting tool. Parents of missing children often turn to the media for help in enlisting the aid of the community in finding their child. Consider the constitutional rights for the freedom of the press; and consider the positive side of the media instead of focusing on the negative.
The Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule was designed to uphold the Fourth Amendment, protecting the rights of people against illegal search and seizure. The rule has made it so evidence seized illegally is not admissible in court, and cannot be used against a defendant even if it proves their guilt. The exclusionary rule should be repealed. A person’s rights can still be respected without enforcing the exclusionary rule, by redefining, and adhering to “probable cause”. Illegally obtained evidence should be allowed in a trial if the evidence clearly proves a suspect’s guilt. As an alternative to the exclusionary rule, statutes should be enforced upon unruly law enforcement officers who knowingly violate a person’s rights, as described in the Fourth Amendment.
There may not be a very large percentage of criminals who are set free because of the exclusionary rule, “less than one out of 100 police arrests are declined for prosecution”; but even one out of 100 is still one too many (Neubauer, 2001, p. 66). It is true that the court should not overlook any type of illegal activity, including activity by the police; but they should not overlook one for another. Both parties should be prosecuted, police and criminal. The rule designed to protect peoples’ rights has turned into a law protecting the rights of criminals. It is not acceptable for law enforcement to take advantage of their authority and conduct searches without warrants, but the community should not suffer for law enforcement’s mistakes. Individual officers should be reprimanded for illegal activity. Dismissing incriminating evidence as a punishment to police is unjust. If an officer breaks the law, his misdeed does not make a criminal any less guilty. The exclusionary rule allows for a criminal to successfully commit a crime without punishment if evidence used was obtained illegally.
The Death Penalty
Is the death penalty an effective deterrent against crime? This is a tough issue that should be handled case by case. On one hand, I feel if a state is going to enforce the death penalty, then they should really enforce it. The death penalty is not a good deterrent if it is never used. On the other hand, I do not really agree that it is anyone but God’s decision to take a life. The offender needs to be punished, no doubt, but does anyone really deserve to die? That is a tough question for me to answer. Capital Punishment is the ultimate retributive justice; some crimes just seem so heinous that no other punishment seems just. If you take away the death penalty, criminals will have no real fear of severe punishment for serious crimes. Plus, prisons are already overcrowded, and the expenses fall on taxpayers. I still am undecided on whether or not I support the death penalty, but I do think it could be a good deterrent.
As it stands, studies show that states who do not use the death penalty fare better on homicide rates than states that use the death penalty (DPIC, 2008). The problem here is that states that have the death penalty do not use it enough. The deterrence value of life in prison is equal to the death penalty, so why not abolish the death penalty? I suppose I fear that taking away the death penalty might ignite a rise in murder rates.
Whether or not the death penalty is moral, it will only be an effective crime deterrent if it is used more often. Criminals will be more likely to think twice about committing serious crimes if they know that there is a real possibility they will pay their debt to society with their lives. Society should not have to foot the bill to support another criminal in prison for the rest of his days. Get him out of there and help keep prison populations down.
Women in the Criminal Justice System
There are many different issues facing women in the criminal justice system; women who are affected by, or women who participate in the criminal justice system. There are women in the workplace, including law enforcement officials, and politicians. There are minority women, mothers, single women, single mothers, and lesbians. The woman criminal, and the woman victim in relation to domestic violence, sexual harassment, and the rhetoric involved in sexual assault cases. There is still bias against women in the workplace, in court, in prisons, and against women in general. Women have come a long way in history, only recently allowed to have jobs that were previously only for males. Despite all the legislation passed since the 1970’s, Glass Ceilings are still prevalent, along with lower wages. “95 percent of female court employees were in the lowest seven pay grades and none were in the top seven” a survey from Rhode Island found (Neubauer, 2001, p. 150).
In this age of record divorce rates, and gay marriage, America is forced to look at raising children differently than it has before. Some people still think a woman’s place is at home with the kids, and not in the office. America is changing, though, and so are the parental and working roles in American households. Minority women have twice the hardships of a minority male, or of a white female. I think it is hard for conservative types to get used to the idea that some women do not want to get married, or who wants to have children and no husband; and that they are entitled to do so. In the same respect, the idea that a child can have two mothers and still have a normal life still upsets many people, especially religious groups. The end result is hate, discrimination, and inequality. Justice is hard to come by for women.
Parole Abolishment
Humans can change, even criminals, if they are exposed to the appropriate treatment. They are not going to learn anything if they are stuck in prison. More funding should go into education, and rehabilitation programs, than into maintaining overcrowded prisons, or building more prisons. Educating children with better values and morals will put a stop to the incline of people in prison. Legislators would need to raise already high tax levels to accommodate the growing prison population; but, that money should be going to better the community, not bettering the prison system. Taxes are not going to go away, so we might as well do something positive with the money.
While it is true that inmates who are released on parole before their sentence is complete may continue a life of crime, the percentage is low. Rehabilitation programs do not profess perfection, but they do make a difference. The difference is made, in work furlough programs, when community correctional officers enforce punishment by sending unruly prisoners back to prison, instead of looking the other way. People who can be rehabilitated need the community’s support in helping them adjust to life on the outside. “Offenders often have few marketable skills and training and, as a result, have a difficult time securing legitimate employment. With no legitimate income, many resort to crime” (Neubauer, 2001).
I am so disappointed in California because we had an opportunity this election to put funds towards better rehabilitation and parole efforts, but the voters did not pass the bill. Bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo confused the voters and everyone piled on billions of more dollars to our already over-stressed budget; but I think we could have cut some spending on court and prison costs had we passed Proposition 5.
USA Patriot Act
Does the USA Patriot Act infringe on civil liberties? I think it does. Last month, “two whistle-blowers—former National Security Agency (NSA) military intercept operators—the people who actually listen in on phone calls—revealed that hundreds of innocent Americans, including soldiers and humanitarian workers for the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, were routinely and intentionally eavesdropped on” (Romero, 2008). I watched this story on the news, Rachel Maddow interviewed the two agents, and I was appalled. I always knew it would come to this; it was only a matter of time before we heard about it. The Bush Administration has played on American’s fears of terrorism to pass a law that gives the government unlimited power of surveillance.
America needs to be protected against terrorist attacks, but “War” is not a good enough reason to jeopardize citizens’ constitutional rights. The power given to the government in the Patriot Act is too much of a temptation for weak-minded, insecure individuals who will most likely abuse the power given to them. The Department of Homeland Security already has a plethora of agencies to use to defend us. The problem is communication between agencies. Local, State, and Federal law enforcement need to work together to protect us. Giving the government more power is not the answer.
Now if the government was utilizing all of their options at that time, 9/11 could have been prevented. The reason 9/11 happened is because there was not enough communication between agencies. The CIA had information, they gave it to the FBI, Clinton was trying to catch Osama Bin Laden but failed, and the President Bush ignored the warnings of attack outlined in his morning Presidential Briefing. The people who could have stopped the attack were not paying attention.
Emergency Preparedness
I believe the U.S. has everything she needs to stay safe. We had the means to prevent the attacks on 9/11; but having the means and being prepared are two different things. There have been a lot of mistakes on the government’s part in the last few years, and a lot of opportunities to make up for those mistakes. The attacks in New York and the Pentagon showed us that we were not prepared to deal with a terrorist attack. Hurricane Katrina showed us that we were not prepared for an emergency. We have the agencies designed to prevent terrorist attacks, and for emergency assistance. I think what both of these events stirred was willingness between agencies to work together to accomplish a common goal: Keep American’s safe.
I think the government lost focus on Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and put unnecessary focus on Iraq. This is just my opinion. We had the chance to stop him but did not put enough resources into it. I also believe, however, the government has seen the error, and is doing everything they can to fix it. And every hurricane after Katrina has been watched closely, with Federal emergency aid ready. I think it is hard to prepare for something that you do not know is going to happen. We do not know when or where an emergency will occur; which is why we have to be ready for anything.
The Department of Homeland Security has many different agencies on call, ready and waiting for an emergency situation. We have specialized hazard units ready for biological, chemical, or radiological warfare, WMD, and natural emergencies. Local law enforcement is in contact with federal agencies and act as first response, clean-up assistance, and crowd control. I think we are very well prepared. We haven’t had any major catastrophes since 9/11, so maybe we have learned a few things.
References
DPIC (2008). Deterrence: States without death penalty have had consistently lower
Murder rates. Death Penalty Information Center Website. Retrieved on November27, 2008 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
MAN (2008). Research on the effects of media violence. Media Awareness Network
Website. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_me_violence
Neubauer, D (2001). Debating crime: Rhetoric and reality. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Romero, A. (2008). NSA caught spying on our own innocent civilians and soldiers.
Veterans for Common Sense Website. Retrieved on November 30, 2008 from
http://www.veteransfocommonsense.org/articleid/11405
Again, I was constrained by a word-count with this paper. The teacher wanted exactly one page per subject, even though I could have written a whole paper on each subject. But anyway, I got an "A" on this paper, too, but I feel I could have done better.
The Media, Crime, and Violence
Many people believe that the media are a cause of violence and crime, and others believe that they simply report what they see. In the history of man, there has always been violence. In the Bible Cain killed his own brother, Abel, because he was jealous, and then tried to lie about it. The Bible and other history books are full of the tales of violence that have defined human nature. As long as there has been violence, people want to know about it. The obsession of humans with the macabre could be our survival instincts at work. Being aware of danger can help us to avoid it.
I believe that there is violence regardless if there is a journalist there to cover the story. The media definitely capitalizes on gruesome details; the more shocking the piece is, the more viewers there will be. I do not believe that the media contributes to violence and crime, or is a cause of it. Informational websites, like The Smoking Gun (TSG), report on high profile cases and odd crime stories. Some people may believe that news sites like TSG inspire copycat criminals, but the same information available on TSG is reported in newspapers around the nation. If someone is going to commit a copycat crime then that is what they are going to do, regardless of where they heard the story. According to the Media Awareness Network, scientists revealed in “studies conducted in Australia, Finland, Poland, Israel, Netherlands and the United States” that in order for media violence to cause aggression in children, they must believe that the violent shows “portray life just as it is” (2008).
People should pay more attention to the rise in population in relation to violent crime; and they should also be looking at the discipline skills of the parents who are raising kids that end up violent offenders.
The Media and Anticrime Efforts
I do not believe that the use of the media to deter crime increases society’s fear of crime. The media is not a bona fide solution to crime deterrence, but I do believe that it is helpful in some situations. If anything, I feel that the media’s display of crime deterrence methods enables the people to safeguard themselves. People feel more confident if they have methods to turn to. For example, a woman walking to her car in a dark parking lot late at night might feel more comfortable after watching a news segment on how to prevent an attack, or how to defend herself from an attacker. Another good example of how the media can help deter crime is shows like America’s Most Wanted, and news casts that show video surveillance of crime, mug shots, or police sketches of suspects. This allows the community to get involved and help law enforcement solve cases and find criminals.
America’s Most Wanted is successful because the host, John Walsh has experienced what many families have suffered, the loss of a loved one. Because of that connection to the people, and because of lobbying efforts by John Walsh, many laws have been passed, and many criminals have been brought to justice. People like a happy ending just as much, if not more, than our natural morbid curiosity to see violence in the media. It is true that journalists and reporters can be invasive. If you or someone you love has been the victim of a violent attack, members of the media can seem annoying. There are some instances, however, when the media can be used as a crime fighting tool. Parents of missing children often turn to the media for help in enlisting the aid of the community in finding their child. Consider the constitutional rights for the freedom of the press; and consider the positive side of the media instead of focusing on the negative.
The Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule was designed to uphold the Fourth Amendment, protecting the rights of people against illegal search and seizure. The rule has made it so evidence seized illegally is not admissible in court, and cannot be used against a defendant even if it proves their guilt. The exclusionary rule should be repealed. A person’s rights can still be respected without enforcing the exclusionary rule, by redefining, and adhering to “probable cause”. Illegally obtained evidence should be allowed in a trial if the evidence clearly proves a suspect’s guilt. As an alternative to the exclusionary rule, statutes should be enforced upon unruly law enforcement officers who knowingly violate a person’s rights, as described in the Fourth Amendment.
There may not be a very large percentage of criminals who are set free because of the exclusionary rule, “less than one out of 100 police arrests are declined for prosecution”; but even one out of 100 is still one too many (Neubauer, 2001, p. 66). It is true that the court should not overlook any type of illegal activity, including activity by the police; but they should not overlook one for another. Both parties should be prosecuted, police and criminal. The rule designed to protect peoples’ rights has turned into a law protecting the rights of criminals. It is not acceptable for law enforcement to take advantage of their authority and conduct searches without warrants, but the community should not suffer for law enforcement’s mistakes. Individual officers should be reprimanded for illegal activity. Dismissing incriminating evidence as a punishment to police is unjust. If an officer breaks the law, his misdeed does not make a criminal any less guilty. The exclusionary rule allows for a criminal to successfully commit a crime without punishment if evidence used was obtained illegally.
The Death Penalty
Is the death penalty an effective deterrent against crime? This is a tough issue that should be handled case by case. On one hand, I feel if a state is going to enforce the death penalty, then they should really enforce it. The death penalty is not a good deterrent if it is never used. On the other hand, I do not really agree that it is anyone but God’s decision to take a life. The offender needs to be punished, no doubt, but does anyone really deserve to die? That is a tough question for me to answer. Capital Punishment is the ultimate retributive justice; some crimes just seem so heinous that no other punishment seems just. If you take away the death penalty, criminals will have no real fear of severe punishment for serious crimes. Plus, prisons are already overcrowded, and the expenses fall on taxpayers. I still am undecided on whether or not I support the death penalty, but I do think it could be a good deterrent.
As it stands, studies show that states who do not use the death penalty fare better on homicide rates than states that use the death penalty (DPIC, 2008). The problem here is that states that have the death penalty do not use it enough. The deterrence value of life in prison is equal to the death penalty, so why not abolish the death penalty? I suppose I fear that taking away the death penalty might ignite a rise in murder rates.
Whether or not the death penalty is moral, it will only be an effective crime deterrent if it is used more often. Criminals will be more likely to think twice about committing serious crimes if they know that there is a real possibility they will pay their debt to society with their lives. Society should not have to foot the bill to support another criminal in prison for the rest of his days. Get him out of there and help keep prison populations down.
Women in the Criminal Justice System
There are many different issues facing women in the criminal justice system; women who are affected by, or women who participate in the criminal justice system. There are women in the workplace, including law enforcement officials, and politicians. There are minority women, mothers, single women, single mothers, and lesbians. The woman criminal, and the woman victim in relation to domestic violence, sexual harassment, and the rhetoric involved in sexual assault cases. There is still bias against women in the workplace, in court, in prisons, and against women in general. Women have come a long way in history, only recently allowed to have jobs that were previously only for males. Despite all the legislation passed since the 1970’s, Glass Ceilings are still prevalent, along with lower wages. “95 percent of female court employees were in the lowest seven pay grades and none were in the top seven” a survey from Rhode Island found (Neubauer, 2001, p. 150).
In this age of record divorce rates, and gay marriage, America is forced to look at raising children differently than it has before. Some people still think a woman’s place is at home with the kids, and not in the office. America is changing, though, and so are the parental and working roles in American households. Minority women have twice the hardships of a minority male, or of a white female. I think it is hard for conservative types to get used to the idea that some women do not want to get married, or who wants to have children and no husband; and that they are entitled to do so. In the same respect, the idea that a child can have two mothers and still have a normal life still upsets many people, especially religious groups. The end result is hate, discrimination, and inequality. Justice is hard to come by for women.
Parole Abolishment
Humans can change, even criminals, if they are exposed to the appropriate treatment. They are not going to learn anything if they are stuck in prison. More funding should go into education, and rehabilitation programs, than into maintaining overcrowded prisons, or building more prisons. Educating children with better values and morals will put a stop to the incline of people in prison. Legislators would need to raise already high tax levels to accommodate the growing prison population; but, that money should be going to better the community, not bettering the prison system. Taxes are not going to go away, so we might as well do something positive with the money.
While it is true that inmates who are released on parole before their sentence is complete may continue a life of crime, the percentage is low. Rehabilitation programs do not profess perfection, but they do make a difference. The difference is made, in work furlough programs, when community correctional officers enforce punishment by sending unruly prisoners back to prison, instead of looking the other way. People who can be rehabilitated need the community’s support in helping them adjust to life on the outside. “Offenders often have few marketable skills and training and, as a result, have a difficult time securing legitimate employment. With no legitimate income, many resort to crime” (Neubauer, 2001).
I am so disappointed in California because we had an opportunity this election to put funds towards better rehabilitation and parole efforts, but the voters did not pass the bill. Bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo confused the voters and everyone piled on billions of more dollars to our already over-stressed budget; but I think we could have cut some spending on court and prison costs had we passed Proposition 5.
USA Patriot Act
Does the USA Patriot Act infringe on civil liberties? I think it does. Last month, “two whistle-blowers—former National Security Agency (NSA) military intercept operators—the people who actually listen in on phone calls—revealed that hundreds of innocent Americans, including soldiers and humanitarian workers for the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, were routinely and intentionally eavesdropped on” (Romero, 2008). I watched this story on the news, Rachel Maddow interviewed the two agents, and I was appalled. I always knew it would come to this; it was only a matter of time before we heard about it. The Bush Administration has played on American’s fears of terrorism to pass a law that gives the government unlimited power of surveillance.
America needs to be protected against terrorist attacks, but “War” is not a good enough reason to jeopardize citizens’ constitutional rights. The power given to the government in the Patriot Act is too much of a temptation for weak-minded, insecure individuals who will most likely abuse the power given to them. The Department of Homeland Security already has a plethora of agencies to use to defend us. The problem is communication between agencies. Local, State, and Federal law enforcement need to work together to protect us. Giving the government more power is not the answer.
Now if the government was utilizing all of their options at that time, 9/11 could have been prevented. The reason 9/11 happened is because there was not enough communication between agencies. The CIA had information, they gave it to the FBI, Clinton was trying to catch Osama Bin Laden but failed, and the President Bush ignored the warnings of attack outlined in his morning Presidential Briefing. The people who could have stopped the attack were not paying attention.
Emergency Preparedness
I believe the U.S. has everything she needs to stay safe. We had the means to prevent the attacks on 9/11; but having the means and being prepared are two different things. There have been a lot of mistakes on the government’s part in the last few years, and a lot of opportunities to make up for those mistakes. The attacks in New York and the Pentagon showed us that we were not prepared to deal with a terrorist attack. Hurricane Katrina showed us that we were not prepared for an emergency. We have the agencies designed to prevent terrorist attacks, and for emergency assistance. I think what both of these events stirred was willingness between agencies to work together to accomplish a common goal: Keep American’s safe.
I think the government lost focus on Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and put unnecessary focus on Iraq. This is just my opinion. We had the chance to stop him but did not put enough resources into it. I also believe, however, the government has seen the error, and is doing everything they can to fix it. And every hurricane after Katrina has been watched closely, with Federal emergency aid ready. I think it is hard to prepare for something that you do not know is going to happen. We do not know when or where an emergency will occur; which is why we have to be ready for anything.
The Department of Homeland Security has many different agencies on call, ready and waiting for an emergency situation. We have specialized hazard units ready for biological, chemical, or radiological warfare, WMD, and natural emergencies. Local law enforcement is in contact with federal agencies and act as first response, clean-up assistance, and crowd control. I think we are very well prepared. We haven’t had any major catastrophes since 9/11, so maybe we have learned a few things.
References
DPIC (2008). Deterrence: States without death penalty have had consistently lower
Murder rates. Death Penalty Information Center Website. Retrieved on November27, 2008 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
MAN (2008). Research on the effects of media violence. Media Awareness Network
Website. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_me_violence
Neubauer, D (2001). Debating crime: Rhetoric and reality. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Romero, A. (2008). NSA caught spying on our own innocent civilians and soldiers.
Veterans for Common Sense Website. Retrieved on November 30, 2008 from
http://www.veteransfocommonsense.org/articleid/11405
Blahism: Personal Code of Ethics
Foreword
I am not so proud of this assignment, I would have liked to write a lot more about my personal ethics. I got an "A" on the paper, but I think I could have done better if I had been allowed to write a longer paper. Also, this teacher really liked headlines; I don't usually use headlines, but it does kind of make for an easier read. And it does look a lot prettier in Word. Let me know what you think about it...
My Personal Ethical System
I genuinely care about people, and my actions are often based on the ethics of care. I am a good person, virtuous, and generous by nature. I am an individual, with my own agenda that sometimes has to come before others. I have faith in God, and I strive to live my life in a way that pleases Him. There are many sides to me, and many reasons why I do what I do in different situations. My ethics cannot be definitively classified solely as deontological or teleological because I am very well balanced between the two major ethical systems. Eventually, I would like to be a licensed psychologist, and have my own private practice. To start, I want to get involved with the corrections department; hopefully I could get a job as a correctional treatment specialist. I have been through trials and tribulations, and I have come through it all on top. I know that I have what it takes to really help people. My experiences have shaped my morals and values, and my strong ethics will help prepare me for my future in psychology.
I have learned a lot of new skills while pursuing my education, but I feel that I will learn the most valuable skills on the job. As a correctional treatment specialist, I will be working closely with offenders who are on probation, and help them work out individual treatment plans to rehabilitate them, and prevent them from repeating criminal behavior. Using basic psychological tests to evaluate clients will enable me to create the best individual treatment plans; which will also help to prepare me for my career in psychology (BLS, 2008). Teaching offender’s important life skills and helping them “with coping, anger management, and drug and sexual abuse counseling” will take a lot of patience (BLS, 2008). It is difficult to unlearn learned behavior, and so I must maintain an understanding of what each client is going through.
I do not really want to work inside the prisons; I would definitely feel more comfortable in an office environment. Of course, like with probation officers, I may need to see clients at their home or work. I would most prefer to work with children because I feel that they are the most misunderstood, and they have a real chance of healing and changing. Adults are set in their ways, and are difficult to rehabilitate, but I will not turn people away if they are asking for my help. I know I want to help people, to make a difference in people’s lives; I want to give them a reason to dream, and give them something to hope for. I rely heavily on my ethical standards, they help me to make good decisions, and they make me a better person. I know I will face challenges in my career, no matter where I start, or where I end up. I know I have a chosen a field that is difficult for weak, impatient, ethically challenged people.
Professional Ethics
Professional ethical standards are pretty basic on the grand scale. Be courteous, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and maintain honesty and integrity. Some unique ethical standards apply to law enforcement, and even more unique standards to a correctional treatment specialist. I would not be bound to the law enforcement sub-culture of ethics because I would not technically be an officer, and so I would not be bound by the officer loyalty code. It would be looked down upon, however, if I were to testify, or go up against a police officer, or a probation officer, or anyone else in the court system. I am after all, part of the law enforcement family, dealing in corrections. Of course, like a defense attorney is responsible for upholding the constitutional rights of his/her client, I am responsible for making sure my client is getting the treatment they need. I need to be able to help people deal with the damage that has been done from past trauma, and also from being abused by law enforcement, if applicable. Helping offenders adjust to life outside of prison, and still maintaining a respect for law enforcement will be a challenging feat. I will need to balance upholding and healing my clients’ psyche; and also respect, and work well with, other members of law enforcement.
Personal and Professional Code
There is always going to be corruption in law enforcement, and citizens are aware of this corruption. They hear about police brutality, and lying by the police to make their cases stronger. It is no secret that there are officers that have been busted for drugs, rape, larceny, murder, attempted murder, etc. These stories are so common that it is difficult for some people, especially minorities, to believe that the police are on their side. The code of ethics for the law enforcement subculture protects corrupt police officers because an officer would rather lie, or pretend not to notice or hear things, rather than turn against other officers. If one honest officer were to report, or testify against a corrupted coworker, that officer may end up being considered a rat and ostracized from the group. I would rather take the punishment than lie, personally, but I can see how other people might make a different choice. To me, it is not worth it to lie; if I have to lie about it, then I should not be involved in it. Just like a probation officer I must “strive to be objective” and “respect the inalienable rights” of offenders (Pollock, 2004). In that line, my personal and professional codes of ethics merge.
People trust in law enforcement when their complaints are heard and taken seriously; when disorderly officers are punished for unacceptable behavior; when women driving the highway at night are not afraid to pull over for the police. Actions speak louder than words. When the police are more open with the community, the community will reciprocate and put more trust into the police. A lot of citizens feel they cannot trust the police. They are more afraid of the police than they are of criminals, and therefore will often not report a crime, or give information about a crime when questioned. I want my clients to trust me. Professionally, I am able to take constructive criticism, and I can make changes so that I do a better job. I appreciate when people tell me I am not doing something correctly, so that I can fix the problem. My clients will never have to be afraid to tell me things. On the other hand, my clients will also understand that I do not condone illegal activities, and I will report them if I have to.
Resolving Dilemmas
Some potential ethical dilemmas I may face in my career include getting too close to a client, or being biased against certain clients. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and will usually trust someone until they give me a reason not to. If I were to get close to a client I might be tempted to overlook warning signs that he/she may be headed for danger. I would want to believe that they had learned their lessons, and would not go back to their old ways. This is dangerous because not only would I put the client at risk, but also the client’s family, friends, and the community. With drug offenders I have to be aware of the chance that they can relapse, regardless if I am counseling them or not; and people do dangerous things to get, or under the influence of, drugs. Also, for violent offenders, anything could trigger their temper, and if someone was just going through counseling because it was court ordered, then the willpower is not usually there to bring on real change. I cannot help someone who does not want to change. I have to balance caring for my clients, and keeping my professional distance by being aware of dangerous situations.
Another ethical dilemma I could face is being biased against one client or the other. I imagine that, for me, sometimes it might be difficult to be empathetic towards an offender, like a drug-dealing gang member who went to prison for accidentally shooting two toddlers during a drive-by shooting. I have to be careful to remember the purpose of my job, to help these people get the treatment they need to be more effective members of society. I need to give everyone the same chance to heal, the same chance to do better, to learn, and to change. Something else to keep in mind, as well, is that children are more fragile, vulnerable, and impressionable than adults are. So it is important for me to always remember that when I am working with kids. It is not fair to put so many demands and expectations on a child; I will need to work at a pace that the child can handle. If I am not careful, I could overload a child to the point where they could be in a more serious mental state than when they came to me. Speaking from experience, just because someone has the credentials does not make them a good counselor.
Conclusion
My personal code of ethics matches very well with the ethical standards required for the career I am interested in. As a correctional treatment specialist I am equipped to develop individual treatment plans for offenders. I am empathetic and understanding, patient and caring. I am callused with experience, and there is not a whole lot that surprises me so I can handle dealing with criminals. There may be times when I am disgusted by the actions of one of my clients, but that will not stand in the way of doing my job. My code of ethics is strong, and I am not afraid to report illegal or dangerous behavior to an offender’s parole officer or to a judge. As a future psychologist, I am well prepared by my own life experiences which I am backing up with a good education. I believe that my personality and characteristics will take me very far professionally; I know I will be successful.
Ethical formalism frames my caring nature, and my deontological religious values guide my decisions. My ethics of virtue hold strong and I do good things because I am a good person. My teleological virtues help keep my ego in check. I am selfish in such a way as everyone else is; I make decisions in my best interest, and am ultimately looking out for myself in most situations. My deontological ethical system balances out my teleological ethics, and vice versa. I have worked hard to be who I am, and I am always looking to better myself. My caring nature makes me easy to get along with, but I am not a pushover and I will stand up for what is right. This personal code of ethics will help me to excel professionally, and to remain intact emotionally and mentally in my personal life as well.
References
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Occupational outlook handbook, 2008-2009 edition,
Probation officers and correctional treatment specialists. Department of Labor.
Retrieved on November 23, 2008 from Website:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos265.htm
Pollock, J.M. (2004). Ethics in crime and justice: Dilemmas and decisions (4th ed).
Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
I am not so proud of this assignment, I would have liked to write a lot more about my personal ethics. I got an "A" on the paper, but I think I could have done better if I had been allowed to write a longer paper. Also, this teacher really liked headlines; I don't usually use headlines, but it does kind of make for an easier read. And it does look a lot prettier in Word. Let me know what you think about it...
My Personal Ethical System
I genuinely care about people, and my actions are often based on the ethics of care. I am a good person, virtuous, and generous by nature. I am an individual, with my own agenda that sometimes has to come before others. I have faith in God, and I strive to live my life in a way that pleases Him. There are many sides to me, and many reasons why I do what I do in different situations. My ethics cannot be definitively classified solely as deontological or teleological because I am very well balanced between the two major ethical systems. Eventually, I would like to be a licensed psychologist, and have my own private practice. To start, I want to get involved with the corrections department; hopefully I could get a job as a correctional treatment specialist. I have been through trials and tribulations, and I have come through it all on top. I know that I have what it takes to really help people. My experiences have shaped my morals and values, and my strong ethics will help prepare me for my future in psychology.
I have learned a lot of new skills while pursuing my education, but I feel that I will learn the most valuable skills on the job. As a correctional treatment specialist, I will be working closely with offenders who are on probation, and help them work out individual treatment plans to rehabilitate them, and prevent them from repeating criminal behavior. Using basic psychological tests to evaluate clients will enable me to create the best individual treatment plans; which will also help to prepare me for my career in psychology (BLS, 2008). Teaching offender’s important life skills and helping them “with coping, anger management, and drug and sexual abuse counseling” will take a lot of patience (BLS, 2008). It is difficult to unlearn learned behavior, and so I must maintain an understanding of what each client is going through.
I do not really want to work inside the prisons; I would definitely feel more comfortable in an office environment. Of course, like with probation officers, I may need to see clients at their home or work. I would most prefer to work with children because I feel that they are the most misunderstood, and they have a real chance of healing and changing. Adults are set in their ways, and are difficult to rehabilitate, but I will not turn people away if they are asking for my help. I know I want to help people, to make a difference in people’s lives; I want to give them a reason to dream, and give them something to hope for. I rely heavily on my ethical standards, they help me to make good decisions, and they make me a better person. I know I will face challenges in my career, no matter where I start, or where I end up. I know I have a chosen a field that is difficult for weak, impatient, ethically challenged people.
Professional Ethics
Professional ethical standards are pretty basic on the grand scale. Be courteous, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and maintain honesty and integrity. Some unique ethical standards apply to law enforcement, and even more unique standards to a correctional treatment specialist. I would not be bound to the law enforcement sub-culture of ethics because I would not technically be an officer, and so I would not be bound by the officer loyalty code. It would be looked down upon, however, if I were to testify, or go up against a police officer, or a probation officer, or anyone else in the court system. I am after all, part of the law enforcement family, dealing in corrections. Of course, like a defense attorney is responsible for upholding the constitutional rights of his/her client, I am responsible for making sure my client is getting the treatment they need. I need to be able to help people deal with the damage that has been done from past trauma, and also from being abused by law enforcement, if applicable. Helping offenders adjust to life outside of prison, and still maintaining a respect for law enforcement will be a challenging feat. I will need to balance upholding and healing my clients’ psyche; and also respect, and work well with, other members of law enforcement.
Personal and Professional Code
There is always going to be corruption in law enforcement, and citizens are aware of this corruption. They hear about police brutality, and lying by the police to make their cases stronger. It is no secret that there are officers that have been busted for drugs, rape, larceny, murder, attempted murder, etc. These stories are so common that it is difficult for some people, especially minorities, to believe that the police are on their side. The code of ethics for the law enforcement subculture protects corrupt police officers because an officer would rather lie, or pretend not to notice or hear things, rather than turn against other officers. If one honest officer were to report, or testify against a corrupted coworker, that officer may end up being considered a rat and ostracized from the group. I would rather take the punishment than lie, personally, but I can see how other people might make a different choice. To me, it is not worth it to lie; if I have to lie about it, then I should not be involved in it. Just like a probation officer I must “strive to be objective” and “respect the inalienable rights” of offenders (Pollock, 2004). In that line, my personal and professional codes of ethics merge.
People trust in law enforcement when their complaints are heard and taken seriously; when disorderly officers are punished for unacceptable behavior; when women driving the highway at night are not afraid to pull over for the police. Actions speak louder than words. When the police are more open with the community, the community will reciprocate and put more trust into the police. A lot of citizens feel they cannot trust the police. They are more afraid of the police than they are of criminals, and therefore will often not report a crime, or give information about a crime when questioned. I want my clients to trust me. Professionally, I am able to take constructive criticism, and I can make changes so that I do a better job. I appreciate when people tell me I am not doing something correctly, so that I can fix the problem. My clients will never have to be afraid to tell me things. On the other hand, my clients will also understand that I do not condone illegal activities, and I will report them if I have to.
Resolving Dilemmas
Some potential ethical dilemmas I may face in my career include getting too close to a client, or being biased against certain clients. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and will usually trust someone until they give me a reason not to. If I were to get close to a client I might be tempted to overlook warning signs that he/she may be headed for danger. I would want to believe that they had learned their lessons, and would not go back to their old ways. This is dangerous because not only would I put the client at risk, but also the client’s family, friends, and the community. With drug offenders I have to be aware of the chance that they can relapse, regardless if I am counseling them or not; and people do dangerous things to get, or under the influence of, drugs. Also, for violent offenders, anything could trigger their temper, and if someone was just going through counseling because it was court ordered, then the willpower is not usually there to bring on real change. I cannot help someone who does not want to change. I have to balance caring for my clients, and keeping my professional distance by being aware of dangerous situations.
Another ethical dilemma I could face is being biased against one client or the other. I imagine that, for me, sometimes it might be difficult to be empathetic towards an offender, like a drug-dealing gang member who went to prison for accidentally shooting two toddlers during a drive-by shooting. I have to be careful to remember the purpose of my job, to help these people get the treatment they need to be more effective members of society. I need to give everyone the same chance to heal, the same chance to do better, to learn, and to change. Something else to keep in mind, as well, is that children are more fragile, vulnerable, and impressionable than adults are. So it is important for me to always remember that when I am working with kids. It is not fair to put so many demands and expectations on a child; I will need to work at a pace that the child can handle. If I am not careful, I could overload a child to the point where they could be in a more serious mental state than when they came to me. Speaking from experience, just because someone has the credentials does not make them a good counselor.
Conclusion
My personal code of ethics matches very well with the ethical standards required for the career I am interested in. As a correctional treatment specialist I am equipped to develop individual treatment plans for offenders. I am empathetic and understanding, patient and caring. I am callused with experience, and there is not a whole lot that surprises me so I can handle dealing with criminals. There may be times when I am disgusted by the actions of one of my clients, but that will not stand in the way of doing my job. My code of ethics is strong, and I am not afraid to report illegal or dangerous behavior to an offender’s parole officer or to a judge. As a future psychologist, I am well prepared by my own life experiences which I am backing up with a good education. I believe that my personality and characteristics will take me very far professionally; I know I will be successful.
Ethical formalism frames my caring nature, and my deontological religious values guide my decisions. My ethics of virtue hold strong and I do good things because I am a good person. My teleological virtues help keep my ego in check. I am selfish in such a way as everyone else is; I make decisions in my best interest, and am ultimately looking out for myself in most situations. My deontological ethical system balances out my teleological ethics, and vice versa. I have worked hard to be who I am, and I am always looking to better myself. My caring nature makes me easy to get along with, but I am not a pushover and I will stand up for what is right. This personal code of ethics will help me to excel professionally, and to remain intact emotionally and mentally in my personal life as well.
References
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Occupational outlook handbook, 2008-2009 edition,
Probation officers and correctional treatment specialists. Department of Labor.
Retrieved on November 23, 2008 from Website:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos265.htm
Pollock, J.M. (2004). Ethics in crime and justice: Dilemmas and decisions (4th ed).
Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
R.I.P. Bettie Page
The legendary and 'notorious' Bettie Page has passed away.
The iconic pinup died at a Los Angeles hospital, where she had been on life support since she had a heart attack on December 2nd, according to her agent, Mark Roesler.
She was 85 years old.
Sadness.
Reference:
perezhilton.com
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
God is Awesome
This is too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence! The similarities are amazing. How intelligently designed.
Friday, December 5, 2008
To Protect and Serve
The story
A pregnant woman and her husband are rushing to the hospital in the breakdown lane of a Massachusetts highway.
The story comes from the Boston Globe. Yes, the couple is going fast. Yes, they're in the breakdown lane. But the woman is in labor, there's a big traffic jam, and they're in a considerable hurry for fairly obvious reasons.
So they pull up behind a state trooper to ask for his help in getting to the hospital. Do they get his help? They do not. They get a ticket instead, for $100, and have to wait while the cop finishes the ticket he was already writing for someone else.
And after this woman in labor and her husband have been made to cool their heels and have been slapped with a $100 dollar ticket -- after all that -- the trooper tops it off by asking Jennifer Davis, the woman in question, to prove she was pregnant.
According to Jennifer Davis, the trooper said, "what's under your jacket?" She said, "my belly." To which the trooper responded, "okay, let's see it." She was wearing a jacket, it seems, and so perhaps this intrepid law enforcer thought she and her husband were stealing a very large beach ball or something.
Click on the title above for full article from CNN
A pregnant woman and her husband are rushing to the hospital in the breakdown lane of a Massachusetts highway.
The story comes from the Boston Globe. Yes, the couple is going fast. Yes, they're in the breakdown lane. But the woman is in labor, there's a big traffic jam, and they're in a considerable hurry for fairly obvious reasons.
So they pull up behind a state trooper to ask for his help in getting to the hospital. Do they get his help? They do not. They get a ticket instead, for $100, and have to wait while the cop finishes the ticket he was already writing for someone else.
And after this woman in labor and her husband have been made to cool their heels and have been slapped with a $100 dollar ticket -- after all that -- the trooper tops it off by asking Jennifer Davis, the woman in question, to prove she was pregnant.
According to Jennifer Davis, the trooper said, "what's under your jacket?" She said, "my belly." To which the trooper responded, "okay, let's see it." She was wearing a jacket, it seems, and so perhaps this intrepid law enforcer thought she and her husband were stealing a very large beach ball or something.
Click on the title above for full article from CNN
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Update: Blahism
So I just finished two more classes! I got an A in Ethics and the Administration of Justice, and a B in Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice. Yay me, toot toot (that was my horn).
I am taking a break, and then starting two new classes on December 15. Criminal Procedures, and Human Resource Management.
I'll post the two papers, but they're pretty much a little summary of all the Blahisms I have already posted.
I have noticed that in college courses, they put a word count on everything. I must say it is very hard to articulate what I want to say, and write an "A" paper to my standards, when I am limited by a word count. My college papers, and essay questions are so vague compared to what I really want to say about the material.
My writing, my creativity, is stifled by a damn word count. So I wanted to explain, before I posted them, that these essays are low in quality compared to what I could have, and would have rather, written about them.
Ciao for now.
I am taking a break, and then starting two new classes on December 15. Criminal Procedures, and Human Resource Management.
I'll post the two papers, but they're pretty much a little summary of all the Blahisms I have already posted.
I have noticed that in college courses, they put a word count on everything. I must say it is very hard to articulate what I want to say, and write an "A" paper to my standards, when I am limited by a word count. My college papers, and essay questions are so vague compared to what I really want to say about the material.
My writing, my creativity, is stifled by a damn word count. So I wanted to explain, before I posted them, that these essays are low in quality compared to what I could have, and would have rather, written about them.
Ciao for now.
Ha Ha Ha!
Man allegedly assaults girlfriend with burger
VERO BEACH, Fla. – A Vero Beach man faces a domestic violence charge after authorities said he assaulted his girlfriend with a cheeseburger. An Indian River County Sheriff's Office arrest report said a 22-year-old man and his girlfriend got into an argument as they sat in a car in front of their home.
The report said the man would not let the woman out of the vehicle, so she threw his drink out of the car. In response, the man allegedly grabbed her arm and smashed the cheeseburger into her face. The pair got out of the car, and authorities say the man again took the McDonald's sandwich and put it on her face.
The man was released on $1,000 bond Wednesday.
___
Information from: Press-Journal, http://www.tcpalm.com/vero
VERO BEACH, Fla. – A Vero Beach man faces a domestic violence charge after authorities said he assaulted his girlfriend with a cheeseburger. An Indian River County Sheriff's Office arrest report said a 22-year-old man and his girlfriend got into an argument as they sat in a car in front of their home.
The report said the man would not let the woman out of the vehicle, so she threw his drink out of the car. In response, the man allegedly grabbed her arm and smashed the cheeseburger into her face. The pair got out of the car, and authorities say the man again took the McDonald's sandwich and put it on her face.
The man was released on $1,000 bond Wednesday.
___
Information from: Press-Journal, http://www.tcpalm.com/vero
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
God Told Me To
Man says God ordered him to ram vehicle at 100 mph
Mon Dec 1, 8:13 pm ET
SAN ANTONIO – A man who rammed his truck into a woman's vehicle on a highway early Friday told authorities he crashed into her while going more than 100 mph because God told him "she needed to be taken off the road."
The truck rear-ended the car on U.S. Highway 281, both vehicles spun across a median then came to a stop along a barrier in the opposite lanes. Both drivers suffered only minor injuries.
"He just said God said she wasn't driving right, and she needed to be taken off the road," Bexar County Sheriff's Office spokesman Kyle Coleman said in the online edition of the San Antonio Express-News. "God must have been with them, 'cause any other time, the severity of this crash, it would have been a fatal."
The pickup driver did not tell police how the woman was driving. Police could not find alcohol or drugs in either driver.
A psychiatric evaluation has been ordered for a man.
Mon Dec 1, 8:13 pm ET
SAN ANTONIO – A man who rammed his truck into a woman's vehicle on a highway early Friday told authorities he crashed into her while going more than 100 mph because God told him "she needed to be taken off the road."
The truck rear-ended the car on U.S. Highway 281, both vehicles spun across a median then came to a stop along a barrier in the opposite lanes. Both drivers suffered only minor injuries.
"He just said God said she wasn't driving right, and she needed to be taken off the road," Bexar County Sheriff's Office spokesman Kyle Coleman said in the online edition of the San Antonio Express-News. "God must have been with them, 'cause any other time, the severity of this crash, it would have been a fatal."
The pickup driver did not tell police how the woman was driving. Police could not find alcohol or drugs in either driver.
A psychiatric evaluation has been ordered for a man.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Blahism: Government Expansion for National Security
The attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11 caused the public and the government to reevaluate our homeland security. The New York Fire Department, the New York Police Department, CIA, FBI all were working together to help out with rescue, protection, and investigation. The past is the past and there is no sense wondering if the intelligence were better, if these agencies were working together before, would that have prevented the attacks? What does make sense, is wondering if these agencies are working together now, will it prevent future attacks? Terrorism is unpredictable, and the people who engage in terrorist acts are different from ordinary criminals in that they are doing it for a cause and not for self-gratification. Terrorists are more dangerous than ordinary criminals. In my opinion, the best offense is a good defense; and since we cannot predict the future, being prepared is the next best thing.
Intelligence operations need to be expanded on a local, state, and federal level; not increased, but more evenly distributed. Federal agencies and law enforcement do not typically share information with each other; and this lack of communication can put citizens in danger regarding terrorist attacks. The FBI is perceived by local law enforcement as withholding intelligence, and therefore do not trust the FBI. Citizens want protection from terrorists; but they fear the prospect of the United States becoming a police state. Therefore, law enforcement is reluctant to be associated with government in order to save face with society. In some situations, though, the police need to be informed about terrorist activities, so they know what to look for while on patrol. Police officers need to be properly trained in what to do with information about, and evidence of terrorism. They need to be able to quickly get new intelligence to the proper authorities who are equipped to deal with the situation. A lot of terrorists can be stopped if the local police are paying attention to details. Being aware of little discrepancies, like misspellings on identification systems, racist or violent propaganda and literature, and weapons could make the difference in stopping a dangerous attack (White, 2004, p. 60). If a police officer takes notice of the warning signs, a regular traffic stop could turn into a heroic event. State and local police should not be responsible for the investigation of terrorism, which should be left to government agencies in homeland security. Police still have the responsibility of maintaining order in their communities, and dealing with civilian crime. That is not a reason, however, to turn a blind eye to domestic terrorism.
Police face the dilemma of working together with other agencies, sharing information, and taking action. The drift between government and state needs to narrow, allowing for a smoother transportation of information between agencies. Trained police officers need to be prepared for any kind of attack since they are usually the first responders. Police need to be trained to handle a biological or a chemical attack; they need to know who to contact, and they need to help that agency maintain order among civilians. Federal agencies can utilize the police force, open the lines of communication, and gather information that is essential in protecting America; but they need to have the appropriate defense agency available to act on the intelligence. Police agencies need to be more open to critical and abstract thinking, instead of the typical “yes, sir” thinking (White, 2004, p. 38). Police do not need to be directly involved with in homeland security; they need only to be aware of signs of danger, and able to pass along the information to the proper authorities.
Many citizens of the United States probably fear the involvement of state police with government agencies. Citizens feel like the integration would give the government more unnecessary power, and eliminate more rights of the people. The government already has the power with the Patriot Act to invade our privacy; see what books we read, look into our computers, listen in to our phone conversations, and view our credit and financial information. It is a large scale sacrifice of our social contract with the government for protection from the “evil-doers”. We want our Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights of privacy to be honored; but we also want to be protected against terrorist attacks. It is a scary thought that the police should have those same advantages over the people, and so law enforcement needs to remain more of a first response team. Law enforcement needs to be able to stabilize a situation until the proper government agency can take over. Executive powers do not need to be increased, but rather more evenly distributed.
The government already has the power to defend the homeland, with many different specialized agencies at its disposal. In 2002 the Bush administration signed the Homeland Security Act calling for the reform of intelligence and information sharing between state and local agencies with federal law enforcement. The departments that are now under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as described by Jonathan White on p. 85 of Defending the Homeland: Domestic Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Security are:
United States Secret Service; National Infrastructure Protection Center; Energy Assurance Office; National Communications System; United States Coast Guard; Customs Service; Transportation Security Administration; Federal Protective Service; Functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; Office of Domestic Preparedness; selected functions of Department of Agriculture; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center; Nuclear threat assessment programs; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Domestic Emergency Support Team; Metropolitan Medical Response System; National Disaster Medical System; Strategic National Stockpile of the Department of Public Health; Nuclear Incident Response Team; A new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The new department is arranged under five Under Secretaries for: Information Analysis and Infrastructure; science and technology; Border and Transportation Security; emergency Preparedness and Response; and Management Services (2004).
Do I believe that executive powers need to be increased? No, I do not. I believe the government has plenty of resources and alternatives available. I do think that local law enforcement has the responsibility to pass along important information, and to respond to emergency situations. The police are mainly responsible, though, for protecting and serving their communities, and they need to honor that allegiance instead of putting more focus into homeland security and domestic terrorism. Law enforcement needs to be aware of important clues, and be able to contact the appropriate authorities with valuable information. Government agencies need to allow for more open communication between all agencies, and state and local law enforcement.
Reference
White, J.R. (2004). Defending the homeland: Domestic intelligence, law enforcement,
and security. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Intelligence operations need to be expanded on a local, state, and federal level; not increased, but more evenly distributed. Federal agencies and law enforcement do not typically share information with each other; and this lack of communication can put citizens in danger regarding terrorist attacks. The FBI is perceived by local law enforcement as withholding intelligence, and therefore do not trust the FBI. Citizens want protection from terrorists; but they fear the prospect of the United States becoming a police state. Therefore, law enforcement is reluctant to be associated with government in order to save face with society. In some situations, though, the police need to be informed about terrorist activities, so they know what to look for while on patrol. Police officers need to be properly trained in what to do with information about, and evidence of terrorism. They need to be able to quickly get new intelligence to the proper authorities who are equipped to deal with the situation. A lot of terrorists can be stopped if the local police are paying attention to details. Being aware of little discrepancies, like misspellings on identification systems, racist or violent propaganda and literature, and weapons could make the difference in stopping a dangerous attack (White, 2004, p. 60). If a police officer takes notice of the warning signs, a regular traffic stop could turn into a heroic event. State and local police should not be responsible for the investigation of terrorism, which should be left to government agencies in homeland security. Police still have the responsibility of maintaining order in their communities, and dealing with civilian crime. That is not a reason, however, to turn a blind eye to domestic terrorism.
Police face the dilemma of working together with other agencies, sharing information, and taking action. The drift between government and state needs to narrow, allowing for a smoother transportation of information between agencies. Trained police officers need to be prepared for any kind of attack since they are usually the first responders. Police need to be trained to handle a biological or a chemical attack; they need to know who to contact, and they need to help that agency maintain order among civilians. Federal agencies can utilize the police force, open the lines of communication, and gather information that is essential in protecting America; but they need to have the appropriate defense agency available to act on the intelligence. Police agencies need to be more open to critical and abstract thinking, instead of the typical “yes, sir” thinking (White, 2004, p. 38). Police do not need to be directly involved with in homeland security; they need only to be aware of signs of danger, and able to pass along the information to the proper authorities.
Many citizens of the United States probably fear the involvement of state police with government agencies. Citizens feel like the integration would give the government more unnecessary power, and eliminate more rights of the people. The government already has the power with the Patriot Act to invade our privacy; see what books we read, look into our computers, listen in to our phone conversations, and view our credit and financial information. It is a large scale sacrifice of our social contract with the government for protection from the “evil-doers”. We want our Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights of privacy to be honored; but we also want to be protected against terrorist attacks. It is a scary thought that the police should have those same advantages over the people, and so law enforcement needs to remain more of a first response team. Law enforcement needs to be able to stabilize a situation until the proper government agency can take over. Executive powers do not need to be increased, but rather more evenly distributed.
The government already has the power to defend the homeland, with many different specialized agencies at its disposal. In 2002 the Bush administration signed the Homeland Security Act calling for the reform of intelligence and information sharing between state and local agencies with federal law enforcement. The departments that are now under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as described by Jonathan White on p. 85 of Defending the Homeland: Domestic Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Security are:
United States Secret Service; National Infrastructure Protection Center; Energy Assurance Office; National Communications System; United States Coast Guard; Customs Service; Transportation Security Administration; Federal Protective Service; Functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; Office of Domestic Preparedness; selected functions of Department of Agriculture; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center; Nuclear threat assessment programs; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Domestic Emergency Support Team; Metropolitan Medical Response System; National Disaster Medical System; Strategic National Stockpile of the Department of Public Health; Nuclear Incident Response Team; A new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The new department is arranged under five Under Secretaries for: Information Analysis and Infrastructure; science and technology; Border and Transportation Security; emergency Preparedness and Response; and Management Services (2004).
Do I believe that executive powers need to be increased? No, I do not. I believe the government has plenty of resources and alternatives available. I do think that local law enforcement has the responsibility to pass along important information, and to respond to emergency situations. The police are mainly responsible, though, for protecting and serving their communities, and they need to honor that allegiance instead of putting more focus into homeland security and domestic terrorism. Law enforcement needs to be aware of important clues, and be able to contact the appropriate authorities with valuable information. Government agencies need to allow for more open communication between all agencies, and state and local law enforcement.
Reference
White, J.R. (2004). Defending the homeland: Domestic intelligence, law enforcement,
and security. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Blahism: USA PATRIOT ACT
I believe that after the attacks on 9/11 the citizens of the United States were expecting immediate action. In my opinion, the Bush Administration seized the opportunity to give government more power, and an opportunity to start another war. The War on Terror spawned from fear-propaganda fed to us by the government in an act to take away rights of the people. I compare this act to a jealous, insecure, controlling high-school boyfriend who searches his girlfriend’s purse, locker, and cell phone to “keep tabs” on her; and secretly beats her at night because he thinks she might be fooling around on him. It is clear to me that Bush has a serious “Daddy” complex and capitalized on his own insecurity. Be it from the low approval ratings, or his true inability to do the right thing. It is weird to me that a Republican administration hell-bent on de-regulation has implemented the biggest government-civilian control system in the history of the United States (And they're calling Obama a socialist?!?).I think that America definitely needs to do something about terrorism, but I don’t think “War” is a good enough reason to jeopardize citizens’ constitutional rights. The power given to the government in the Patriot Act is too much of a temptation for weak-minded, insecure individuals who will most likely abuse the power given to them. It is a good idea, but that is all that is good about it.
Friday, November 14, 2008
I Love San Diego
This is amazing! This guy has no arms and plays the guitar better than I ever could! Learn something from him, you can do anything if you put your mind to it.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Dance Fail
I think I remember doing something like this.....when I was 9..... and it required stitches......
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Protest Prop 8
Click on title above to go to the website
Prop 8 opponents are organizing a state-wide protest on November 15th. Will you protest for human rights?
San Diego protest will be held at the Convention Center. I may have to show my support for this one; California needs to wake up.
Prop 8 opponents are organizing a state-wide protest on November 15th. Will you protest for human rights?
San Diego protest will be held at the Convention Center. I may have to show my support for this one; California needs to wake up.
Computer Model Predicts Human Behavior
Computer Model Predicts Human Behavior
By Rick Nauert, Ph.D.
Senior News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on November 10, 2008
Monday, Nov 10 (Psych Central) -- Computer Model Predicts Human BehaviorResearchers announce the development of a computer model that can predict how people will complete a controlled task and how the knowledge needed to complete that task develops over time
Frank Ritter, associate professor from Penn State’s College of Information Sciences and Technology and his research associates, used the Soar programming language, which is designed to represent human knowledge, on a 20-trial circuit troubleshooting task.
The testing was most recently performed by 10 students at the University of Nottingham, UK.
Each participant was to identify faults in a circuit system after memorizing the organization of its components and switches. This process was repeated 20 times for each person, with the series of tests chosen randomly each time. Their choices and reaction times were recorded and compared with the computer model’s results.
Much like the students, the computer model, called Diag, learned as it went through each test and developed the knowledge for completing the task quickly and efficiently.
“The model does not merely accurately predict problem-solving time for the human participants; it also replicates the strategy that human participants use, and it learns at the same rate at which the participants learn,” Ritter said.
In most cases, the model came within two to four seconds of predicting how long it would take each participant to solve the problem and it fit eight out of the 10 participants’ problem-solving times very well. Ritter said the results outlined in the paper were consistent with previous trials, showing the development of regularity in the model.
“The project shows we can predict human learning on a fine-grained level,” Ritter said.
“Everyone thinks that’s possible, but here’s an actual model doing it. The model provides a detailed representation of how a transfer works, and that transfer process is really what education is about.”
Source: Penn State
By Rick Nauert, Ph.D.
Senior News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on November 10, 2008
Monday, Nov 10 (Psych Central) -- Computer Model Predicts Human BehaviorResearchers announce the development of a computer model that can predict how people will complete a controlled task and how the knowledge needed to complete that task develops over time
Frank Ritter, associate professor from Penn State’s College of Information Sciences and Technology and his research associates, used the Soar programming language, which is designed to represent human knowledge, on a 20-trial circuit troubleshooting task.
The testing was most recently performed by 10 students at the University of Nottingham, UK.
Each participant was to identify faults in a circuit system after memorizing the organization of its components and switches. This process was repeated 20 times for each person, with the series of tests chosen randomly each time. Their choices and reaction times were recorded and compared with the computer model’s results.
Much like the students, the computer model, called Diag, learned as it went through each test and developed the knowledge for completing the task quickly and efficiently.
“The model does not merely accurately predict problem-solving time for the human participants; it also replicates the strategy that human participants use, and it learns at the same rate at which the participants learn,” Ritter said.
In most cases, the model came within two to four seconds of predicting how long it would take each participant to solve the problem and it fit eight out of the 10 participants’ problem-solving times very well. Ritter said the results outlined in the paper were consistent with previous trials, showing the development of regularity in the model.
“The project shows we can predict human learning on a fine-grained level,” Ritter said.
“Everyone thinks that’s possible, but here’s an actual model doing it. The model provides a detailed representation of how a transfer works, and that transfer process is really what education is about.”
Source: Penn State
Blahism: Abolish Parole?
For Abolishment of Parole
It is a widely accepted notion that convicted felons cannot be reformed and made into productive members of society. Rehabilitation programs do not work; repeat offenders are responsible for ¾ of violent crime (Allen, 2001, p. 170). Truth-in-sentencing laws need to be enforced; inmates should be serving at least 85% of their sentences. Courts need to enforce longer prison sentences to prevent recidivism. George Allen (2001) states that “the longer an offender remained behind bars, the less likely he is to commit another crime after finishing his sentence”. The money spent on punishing repeat offenders could be saved by keeping inmates in prison longer, reducing the amount of crime committed by these offenders. The victims of violent crime committed by repeat offenders can be saved by keeping violent criminals behind bars, where they belong. The abolishment of parole will save lives and money.
Against Abolishment of Parole
Humans can change, even criminals, if they are exposed to the appropriate treatment. More funding should go into education, and rehabilitation programs, than into building more prisons. Educating children with better values and morals will put a stop to the incline of people in prison. Legislators would need to raise already high tax levels to accommodate the growing prison population; but, that money should be going to better the community, not bettering the prison system. While it is true that inmates who are released on parole before their sentence is complete may continue a life of crime, the percentage is low. Rehabilitation programs do not profess perfection, but they do make a difference. The difference is made, in work furlough programs, when community correctional officers enforce punishment by sending unruly prisoners back to prison, instead of looking the other way.
It is a widely accepted notion that convicted felons cannot be reformed and made into productive members of society. Rehabilitation programs do not work; repeat offenders are responsible for ¾ of violent crime (Allen, 2001, p. 170). Truth-in-sentencing laws need to be enforced; inmates should be serving at least 85% of their sentences. Courts need to enforce longer prison sentences to prevent recidivism. George Allen (2001) states that “the longer an offender remained behind bars, the less likely he is to commit another crime after finishing his sentence”. The money spent on punishing repeat offenders could be saved by keeping inmates in prison longer, reducing the amount of crime committed by these offenders. The victims of violent crime committed by repeat offenders can be saved by keeping violent criminals behind bars, where they belong. The abolishment of parole will save lives and money.
Against Abolishment of Parole
Humans can change, even criminals, if they are exposed to the appropriate treatment. More funding should go into education, and rehabilitation programs, than into building more prisons. Educating children with better values and morals will put a stop to the incline of people in prison. Legislators would need to raise already high tax levels to accommodate the growing prison population; but, that money should be going to better the community, not bettering the prison system. While it is true that inmates who are released on parole before their sentence is complete may continue a life of crime, the percentage is low. Rehabilitation programs do not profess perfection, but they do make a difference. The difference is made, in work furlough programs, when community correctional officers enforce punishment by sending unruly prisoners back to prison, instead of looking the other way.
Blahism: Movie Review
A Time to Kill
The Plot
A Time to Kill is a court-room thriller based on the novel of the same name by John Grisham. Carl Lee Hailey is an African American man in a mostly White town in Mississippi; he has a wife, three boys, and a girl. Jake Brigance is a young, White lawyer who is going broke, but has a lot of heart. The story begins as two young White men are drinking and driving, throwing beer bottles and cans at houses. Tanya Hailey, Carl Lee’s 10-year-old daughter is walking down the road, carrying groceries home from the store. The unthinkable happens as the truck with the two young men approach little Tanya; laughing, they throw a full beer can at her; she drops her groceries and falls to the ground. The two men take her, bind her wrists and ankles, and take turns raping her. They continue to throw full beer cans at her, tearing open her skin, sometimes to the bone. After they have their way with her, they urinate all over her, and they tie a noose around her neck and hang her from a tree. The tree branch was not strong enough to hold Tanya, and it breaks, sending Tanya to the ground. The two men gather her little broken body and throw her into the back of their truck, and then they toss her over a 30-foot bridge to the creek below. She did not die, though, and she was able to identify her attackers.
The Dilemma
Carl Lee’s ethical dilemma stems from the decision to let the law take care of the two men, where, even if convicted, they would be released after a very short sentence; or to take the law into his own hands and take his revenge on the two men for what they did to his little girl. The most common ethical framework taking place in this story is very much a teleological framework; the characters embrace utilitarianism by doing what they feel is necessary to attain the “right” outcome. Carl Lee paid a visit to Jake Brigance, who he knew from before. He told Brigance that he might do something terrible; and asked him if he would defend him if he was ever in a jam. Jake asked him what he was planning on doing, and Carl Lee replied simply: “you got [sic] a daughter, Jake, what would you do?” Jake Brigance himself is the father to a little girl, around the same age as Tanya. Jake Brigance’s first ethical dilemma is whether or not to listen to his wife’s advice, and call the sheriff to tell him of Carl Lee’s plans. If he knew someone was about to break the law, it is his duty as a citizen, and as a lawyer, to report it to the appropriate authorities. Brigance does not, however, listen to his wife; and Carl Lee made his decision.
The Choice
The two White men moved through the crowded courthouse, escorted by an officer, on their way to be arraigned for the rape and attempted murder of Tanya Hailey. There are some Black folk watching; mostly there are white folk crowding the halls, including one of the men’s mother and brother. Carl Lee Hailey is hiding, sweating, watching and waiting. The men begin to ascend the stairs and Carl Lee breaks out of his hiding place, armed with a high-powered automatic rifle, and shoots down the two men, killing them right there in the courthouse. Unfortunately, the officer was also hit by a bullet, and he lost his right leg below the knee. Jake Brigance saw the whole thing, along with half the town; and he was stunned by the event, never thinking that Carl Lee would really do what he said he might do. Now, Jake had already given his word that he would help Carl Lee; and so he set out to prove that a Black man could get a fair trial in a town made up of over 75% White people. Jake said to the press that they will “look past color and see the truth. Justice will be color blind”. Initially, I think, the case meant more to Brigance because it was a high-profile case, and a chance to go up against his nemesis, Rufus Buckley, in a capital murder case. Even after he learned that Carl Lee did not have the money to pay for a good defense, though, I think Brigance stayed on the case because it was the right thing to do. After all, he admitted to his assistant, Roark, that he wanted Carl Lee to do it, to kill the two men. Brigance can relate to Carl Lee because he is not positive that he would not do the same thing if their positions were switched. Even the officer who lost his leg testified in court that he did not blame Carl Lee, that he would have done the same if it were his daughter.
The Cost
Many bad things happened in the aftermath of this case; many people tried to get Jake to drop the case. Jake’s wife pleaded him to drop the case after the KKK put a burning cross in their front yard; Jake’s family was at risk. Jake’s secretary pleaded with him to drop the case after she started receiving threatening phone calls at home; the life of his Jake’s coworker was at risk. A man tried to put a bomb under Jake’s house. Even the judge presiding over the case wanted Jake to drop it; he asked Jake “why toss away a promising career”? The sheriff was beat up in a fight between the KKK and the Black protestors outside the courthouse; when Jake tried to help the sheriff, he was sliced by a knife in the leg. The KKK put a burning cross at the courthouse; and Jake’s house was burned to the ground from a second burning cross in his front yard. Jake’s friend and colleague wanted him to drop the case for his own safety, but Jake said no because that would have made all of the sacrifices for nothing. He had to move forward with the case. A sniper who was aiming for Jake shot a guard in the neck, paralyzing him. Finally, Jake’s researcher, Roark, was kidnapped, beaten, and left for dead by the KKK for being a “Ni**er Lover”.
Rufus Buckley, the District Attorney, is portrayed as a man with not very high ethical standards. He is aware that Carl Lee Hailey will not get a fair trial with a white jury; but proceeds to go for the win anyway. He tells reporters that he is a sensitive man, but that he has a duty to protect the public from people who take the law into their own hands; he has to take a stand against vigilante violence. In his closing argument to the jury, Buckley says that “feeling terrible, knowing something is wrong, does not give any of us the right to kill”.
The Solution
It is clear, about halfway through the movie that Carl Lee does not see his lawyer, Jake, as a friend; but rather as one of the bad guys. That is why, Carl Lee says, that he wanted Jake to defend him, because he is one of “them”; he knows how the White people think because he is one of the White people. Carl Lee hopes that Jake will be able to get the jury to see the case from a different perspective. Carl Lee asks Jake “if you was[sic] on that jury, what would it take to convince you to se me free?” Jake has to search inside himself to find the awful truth. Instead of reading his prepared argument to the jury, Jake asks them to close their eyes and imagine the little girl being brutalized. He painstakingly recalls all of the horrendous details of the attack and closes his statement with the question “now imagine she’s white”. It is sad, but it worked; Carl Lee was set free, not guilty of murder.
The Ethics
The DA’s ethics are questionable, but he was doing his job by prosecuting a defendant who killed two young men. The judge’s ethics are questionable, he wanted Jake to drop the case, but he did his job as trial judge. Carl Lee Hailey’s ethical standards are definitely questionable; he murdered two people. It is understandable the reasons why Carl Lee did what he did, but that does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. At the same time, it is not justice if a Black man cannot get a fair trial based on the color of his skin. So now we come to Jake Brigance, seemingly innocent of any wrong doing, just a man trying to see that justice is served. Was it the right thing, though, to knowingly put his family and friends in danger for the sake of one man?
There were different decisions that could have been made. Jake could have, and probably should have called the sheriff right off the bat. The sheriff could have maybe talked Carl Lee out of shooting those two men. Carl Lee could have decided to let the law handle it, to keep his hands clean. He could have found another job and moved his family out of that town. The judge could have honored the defense’s request for a change of venue, giving Carl Lee a better chance at a fair trial. Rufus Buckley and Jake Brigance could have settled on a plea bargain. Many different things could have been done differently; but people make their decisions based on their personal experiences and feelings. Mothers and fathers understood why Carl Lee killed those two men; many would have done the same thing.
Legal dramas, like A Time to Kill, are interesting to people because it gives us the chance to put ourselves in that position; to think about what we would do if we were in that situation. Movies like this one give us the chance to choose a side, to take a stand on an issue. These movies are especially successful with an all-star cast like this movie. This was a great movie, a great issue.
The Plot
A Time to Kill is a court-room thriller based on the novel of the same name by John Grisham. Carl Lee Hailey is an African American man in a mostly White town in Mississippi; he has a wife, three boys, and a girl. Jake Brigance is a young, White lawyer who is going broke, but has a lot of heart. The story begins as two young White men are drinking and driving, throwing beer bottles and cans at houses. Tanya Hailey, Carl Lee’s 10-year-old daughter is walking down the road, carrying groceries home from the store. The unthinkable happens as the truck with the two young men approach little Tanya; laughing, they throw a full beer can at her; she drops her groceries and falls to the ground. The two men take her, bind her wrists and ankles, and take turns raping her. They continue to throw full beer cans at her, tearing open her skin, sometimes to the bone. After they have their way with her, they urinate all over her, and they tie a noose around her neck and hang her from a tree. The tree branch was not strong enough to hold Tanya, and it breaks, sending Tanya to the ground. The two men gather her little broken body and throw her into the back of their truck, and then they toss her over a 30-foot bridge to the creek below. She did not die, though, and she was able to identify her attackers.
The Dilemma
Carl Lee’s ethical dilemma stems from the decision to let the law take care of the two men, where, even if convicted, they would be released after a very short sentence; or to take the law into his own hands and take his revenge on the two men for what they did to his little girl. The most common ethical framework taking place in this story is very much a teleological framework; the characters embrace utilitarianism by doing what they feel is necessary to attain the “right” outcome. Carl Lee paid a visit to Jake Brigance, who he knew from before. He told Brigance that he might do something terrible; and asked him if he would defend him if he was ever in a jam. Jake asked him what he was planning on doing, and Carl Lee replied simply: “you got [sic] a daughter, Jake, what would you do?” Jake Brigance himself is the father to a little girl, around the same age as Tanya. Jake Brigance’s first ethical dilemma is whether or not to listen to his wife’s advice, and call the sheriff to tell him of Carl Lee’s plans. If he knew someone was about to break the law, it is his duty as a citizen, and as a lawyer, to report it to the appropriate authorities. Brigance does not, however, listen to his wife; and Carl Lee made his decision.
The Choice
The two White men moved through the crowded courthouse, escorted by an officer, on their way to be arraigned for the rape and attempted murder of Tanya Hailey. There are some Black folk watching; mostly there are white folk crowding the halls, including one of the men’s mother and brother. Carl Lee Hailey is hiding, sweating, watching and waiting. The men begin to ascend the stairs and Carl Lee breaks out of his hiding place, armed with a high-powered automatic rifle, and shoots down the two men, killing them right there in the courthouse. Unfortunately, the officer was also hit by a bullet, and he lost his right leg below the knee. Jake Brigance saw the whole thing, along with half the town; and he was stunned by the event, never thinking that Carl Lee would really do what he said he might do. Now, Jake had already given his word that he would help Carl Lee; and so he set out to prove that a Black man could get a fair trial in a town made up of over 75% White people. Jake said to the press that they will “look past color and see the truth. Justice will be color blind”. Initially, I think, the case meant more to Brigance because it was a high-profile case, and a chance to go up against his nemesis, Rufus Buckley, in a capital murder case. Even after he learned that Carl Lee did not have the money to pay for a good defense, though, I think Brigance stayed on the case because it was the right thing to do. After all, he admitted to his assistant, Roark, that he wanted Carl Lee to do it, to kill the two men. Brigance can relate to Carl Lee because he is not positive that he would not do the same thing if their positions were switched. Even the officer who lost his leg testified in court that he did not blame Carl Lee, that he would have done the same if it were his daughter.
The Cost
Many bad things happened in the aftermath of this case; many people tried to get Jake to drop the case. Jake’s wife pleaded him to drop the case after the KKK put a burning cross in their front yard; Jake’s family was at risk. Jake’s secretary pleaded with him to drop the case after she started receiving threatening phone calls at home; the life of his Jake’s coworker was at risk. A man tried to put a bomb under Jake’s house. Even the judge presiding over the case wanted Jake to drop it; he asked Jake “why toss away a promising career”? The sheriff was beat up in a fight between the KKK and the Black protestors outside the courthouse; when Jake tried to help the sheriff, he was sliced by a knife in the leg. The KKK put a burning cross at the courthouse; and Jake’s house was burned to the ground from a second burning cross in his front yard. Jake’s friend and colleague wanted him to drop the case for his own safety, but Jake said no because that would have made all of the sacrifices for nothing. He had to move forward with the case. A sniper who was aiming for Jake shot a guard in the neck, paralyzing him. Finally, Jake’s researcher, Roark, was kidnapped, beaten, and left for dead by the KKK for being a “Ni**er Lover”.
Rufus Buckley, the District Attorney, is portrayed as a man with not very high ethical standards. He is aware that Carl Lee Hailey will not get a fair trial with a white jury; but proceeds to go for the win anyway. He tells reporters that he is a sensitive man, but that he has a duty to protect the public from people who take the law into their own hands; he has to take a stand against vigilante violence. In his closing argument to the jury, Buckley says that “feeling terrible, knowing something is wrong, does not give any of us the right to kill”.
The Solution
It is clear, about halfway through the movie that Carl Lee does not see his lawyer, Jake, as a friend; but rather as one of the bad guys. That is why, Carl Lee says, that he wanted Jake to defend him, because he is one of “them”; he knows how the White people think because he is one of the White people. Carl Lee hopes that Jake will be able to get the jury to see the case from a different perspective. Carl Lee asks Jake “if you was[sic] on that jury, what would it take to convince you to se me free?” Jake has to search inside himself to find the awful truth. Instead of reading his prepared argument to the jury, Jake asks them to close their eyes and imagine the little girl being brutalized. He painstakingly recalls all of the horrendous details of the attack and closes his statement with the question “now imagine she’s white”. It is sad, but it worked; Carl Lee was set free, not guilty of murder.
The Ethics
The DA’s ethics are questionable, but he was doing his job by prosecuting a defendant who killed two young men. The judge’s ethics are questionable, he wanted Jake to drop the case, but he did his job as trial judge. Carl Lee Hailey’s ethical standards are definitely questionable; he murdered two people. It is understandable the reasons why Carl Lee did what he did, but that does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. At the same time, it is not justice if a Black man cannot get a fair trial based on the color of his skin. So now we come to Jake Brigance, seemingly innocent of any wrong doing, just a man trying to see that justice is served. Was it the right thing, though, to knowingly put his family and friends in danger for the sake of one man?
There were different decisions that could have been made. Jake could have, and probably should have called the sheriff right off the bat. The sheriff could have maybe talked Carl Lee out of shooting those two men. Carl Lee could have decided to let the law handle it, to keep his hands clean. He could have found another job and moved his family out of that town. The judge could have honored the defense’s request for a change of venue, giving Carl Lee a better chance at a fair trial. Rufus Buckley and Jake Brigance could have settled on a plea bargain. Many different things could have been done differently; but people make their decisions based on their personal experiences and feelings. Mothers and fathers understood why Carl Lee killed those two men; many would have done the same thing.
Legal dramas, like A Time to Kill, are interesting to people because it gives us the chance to put ourselves in that position; to think about what we would do if we were in that situation. Movies like this one give us the chance to choose a side, to take a stand on an issue. These movies are especially successful with an all-star cast like this movie. This was a great movie, a great issue.
Blahism: Attorney's Obligations
A defense attorney is obligated to protect the due-process rights of their clients by zealously representing their cases “within the bounds of the law” (Pollock, 2004, p. 253). A defense attorney should always maintain honesty, and disclose all evidence and information even if it is harmful to their case. While upholding all the ethical obligations, a defense attorney must “maintain a professional and courteous relationship with the opposing attorneys, litigants, and witnesses” (Pollock, 2004, p. 253).
A prosecuting attorney is obligated to represent public interest, and obtain convictions of guilty criminals. The prosecutor must always have probable cause, and make important decisions about cases after careful consideration of witness reliability, public or political interest; and does so in seeking justice. A prosecutor must always avoid conflicts of interest, such as a private client becoming a defendant; or when it seems that a prosecutor is more interested in a high-profile for personal gain or notoriety, rather than for pursuing justice.
The obligations of both a defense and prosecuting attorney are similar in that they both are expected to uphold justice, and to ensure that the law is being followed in the court process. The difference between the two is that prosecuting attorneys have a responsibility to represent the state or federal court system; and defense attorneys are responsible for representing the constitutional rights of the defendant(s).
A prosecuting attorney is obligated to represent public interest, and obtain convictions of guilty criminals. The prosecutor must always have probable cause, and make important decisions about cases after careful consideration of witness reliability, public or political interest; and does so in seeking justice. A prosecutor must always avoid conflicts of interest, such as a private client becoming a defendant; or when it seems that a prosecutor is more interested in a high-profile for personal gain or notoriety, rather than for pursuing justice.
The obligations of both a defense and prosecuting attorney are similar in that they both are expected to uphold justice, and to ensure that the law is being followed in the court process. The difference between the two is that prosecuting attorneys have a responsibility to represent the state or federal court system; and defense attorneys are responsible for representing the constitutional rights of the defendant(s).
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Lawyers
QUOTE:
"Lawyers are upset. They have discovered what they believe to be an alarming
new trend: people don’t like them. The American Bar Association recently
appointed a special panel to investigate the legal profession’s bad image. The
California State Bar has commissioned a survey to find out why so many people
dislike lawyers . . . . We wish to reassure lawyers. This wave of anti-lawyer
feeling is nothing new. People have always hated you."
A. Roth and J. Roth, Devil’s Advocates: The Unnatural History of Lawyers (Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press,
1989): i.
"Lawyers are upset. They have discovered what they believe to be an alarming
new trend: people don’t like them. The American Bar Association recently
appointed a special panel to investigate the legal profession’s bad image. The
California State Bar has commissioned a survey to find out why so many people
dislike lawyers . . . . We wish to reassure lawyers. This wave of anti-lawyer
feeling is nothing new. People have always hated you."
A. Roth and J. Roth, Devil’s Advocates: The Unnatural History of Lawyers (Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press,
1989): i.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Email from Barack
Jaimie --
I'm about to head to Grant Park to talk to everyone gathered there, but I wanted to write to you first.
We just made history.
And I don't want you to forget how we did it.
You made history every single day during this campaign -- every day you knocked on doors, made a donation, or talked to your family, friends, and neighbors about why you believe it's time for change.
I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign.
We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next.
But I want to be very clear about one thing...
All of this happened because of you.
Thank you,
Barack
Monday, November 3, 2008
Blahism: Law Enforcement Ethics
What conflicts do you see between the formal law enforcement code of ethics and the police subculture or “Cop Code”? What ethical problems might these conflicts create? How are these two different ethical codes tied to public perceptions of the role of law enforcement?
The difference between the formal law enforcement code of ethics and the “Cop Code” is that formally, they are there to protect and serve the community. More often, however, they are perceived to protect themselves and each other. Time after time I have read the news article where a 16-year-old teenager was gunned-down by officers, and the officers are quoted as saying “he was reaching for a weapon”, or “he was going to attack us”. Meanwhile the distraught mother who saw the whole thing says “they just shot him, for no reason, they shot my baby!”.
These conflicts can cause the community to feel that they cannot trust law enforcement, and therefore might take matters into their own hands. Community members are aware of corruption in law enforcement. They hear about police brutality, and lying by the police to make their cases stronger. Personally, I feel there mostly good cops in my city, but there are also a lot of deaths caused by trigger-happy officers. It is no secret that there are officers that have been busted for drugs, rape, larceny, murder, attempted murder, etc. These stories are so common in my city that it is difficult to believe that the police are on my side; or that they are protecting me. Who is going to protect me from the police?
People trust in law enforcement when their complaints are heard and taken seriously; when disorderly officers are punished for unacceptable behavior; when women driving the highway at night are not afraid to pull over for the police. Actions speak louder than words. When the police are more open with the community, the community will reciprocate and put more trust into the police.
The difference between the formal law enforcement code of ethics and the “Cop Code” is that formally, they are there to protect and serve the community. More often, however, they are perceived to protect themselves and each other. Time after time I have read the news article where a 16-year-old teenager was gunned-down by officers, and the officers are quoted as saying “he was reaching for a weapon”, or “he was going to attack us”. Meanwhile the distraught mother who saw the whole thing says “they just shot him, for no reason, they shot my baby!”.
These conflicts can cause the community to feel that they cannot trust law enforcement, and therefore might take matters into their own hands. Community members are aware of corruption in law enforcement. They hear about police brutality, and lying by the police to make their cases stronger. Personally, I feel there mostly good cops in my city, but there are also a lot of deaths caused by trigger-happy officers. It is no secret that there are officers that have been busted for drugs, rape, larceny, murder, attempted murder, etc. These stories are so common in my city that it is difficult to believe that the police are on my side; or that they are protecting me. Who is going to protect me from the police?
People trust in law enforcement when their complaints are heard and taken seriously; when disorderly officers are punished for unacceptable behavior; when women driving the highway at night are not afraid to pull over for the police. Actions speak louder than words. When the police are more open with the community, the community will reciprocate and put more trust into the police.
Blahism: Judge Ethics
Judges, like police officers and attorneys, are held to a higher ethical standard than the average person; they are expected to be impartial and non-biased in their work. Do you believe a judge can be completely unbiased with every case? Explain your answer. What ethical issues arise when a judge is biased?
Not only are judges expected to be unbiased inside the courtroom, but they are also expected to uphold a high ethical standard in their personal lives as well. Image is important, especially for elected positions. I believe that it is impossible to be non-biased with every case. Maybe in the beginning of a judge’s career they are very open-minded about every case; but after years of drunk drivers, drug addicts, child abusers, rapists, and murderers, it is probably very difficult to remain unbiased towards every case. I do believe, however, that a judge needs to be indiscriminate in the courtroom and keep personal opinions out of it.
The ethical issue facing a judge who is biased is the fact that he/she is not being fully open-minded during a trial; therefore the defendant is not really getting a fair trial. A judge who is biased may order a defendant to an unfairly long sentence, infringing on the defendant’s Eighth Amendment rights against cruel or unusual punishment.
Not only are judges expected to be unbiased inside the courtroom, but they are also expected to uphold a high ethical standard in their personal lives as well. Image is important, especially for elected positions. I believe that it is impossible to be non-biased with every case. Maybe in the beginning of a judge’s career they are very open-minded about every case; but after years of drunk drivers, drug addicts, child abusers, rapists, and murderers, it is probably very difficult to remain unbiased towards every case. I do believe, however, that a judge needs to be indiscriminate in the courtroom and keep personal opinions out of it.
The ethical issue facing a judge who is biased is the fact that he/she is not being fully open-minded during a trial; therefore the defendant is not really getting a fair trial. A judge who is biased may order a defendant to an unfairly long sentence, infringing on the defendant’s Eighth Amendment rights against cruel or unusual punishment.
Blahism: Bobby K. Lawyer
Bobby K. Lawyer’s first inclination when accepting a new client is to begin the process of plea bargaining. He is not interested in “dragging out” a case in court that will go on for months and might get ugly. Plea bargaining, in his opinion, is a much simpler way to work the system and satisfy both parties. But Bobby is not looked on very highly by his peers. To many of his peers, plea bargains cheat the system, side-step justice, and do not take due process into consideration.
The ethical dilemma associated with plea bargaining is that Bobby may not be upholding his responsibility as an attorney. While most lawyers are not viewed very highly in the ethics department, they are held at some sort of ethical standard set by the American Bar Association (ABA). Bobby has become a “fast-food lawyer” (p. 252), pushing cases through the system as fast as possible, to make the biggest profit. This strategy could victimize some defendants because they can only afford a court appointed attorney, and since Bobby is pushing for a plea bargain the defendant is therefore not getting a fair trial. In addition to the possible victimization of his clients, Bobby is pushing his relationship with other professionals into rocky waters.
If the defendant, prosecutor, and Bobby all agree that a plea bargain is the best way to wrap up a case, then a plea bargain is the ethical thing to do. Valuable court time is saved, the defendant saves the money he/she would need to pay Bobby through a trial, and the taxpayers save money by not having to pay for a jury trial. Everyone is happy with this deontological framework, so the means justify the ends.
If Bobby keeps pushing cases to plea bargains, he might not be maintaining professional responsibility to his clients; and he may be angering prosecutors because he is making a mockery of the court system. But the more cases Bobby pushes to plea bargain, the more money he gets. Bobby is happy with the teleological framework because the ends justify the means.
I think Bobby should stick to the deontological framework, and use plea bargains sparingly when the situation calls for it, and when all players in the courtroom agree.
The ethical dilemma associated with plea bargaining is that Bobby may not be upholding his responsibility as an attorney. While most lawyers are not viewed very highly in the ethics department, they are held at some sort of ethical standard set by the American Bar Association (ABA). Bobby has become a “fast-food lawyer” (p. 252), pushing cases through the system as fast as possible, to make the biggest profit. This strategy could victimize some defendants because they can only afford a court appointed attorney, and since Bobby is pushing for a plea bargain the defendant is therefore not getting a fair trial. In addition to the possible victimization of his clients, Bobby is pushing his relationship with other professionals into rocky waters.
If the defendant, prosecutor, and Bobby all agree that a plea bargain is the best way to wrap up a case, then a plea bargain is the ethical thing to do. Valuable court time is saved, the defendant saves the money he/she would need to pay Bobby through a trial, and the taxpayers save money by not having to pay for a jury trial. Everyone is happy with this deontological framework, so the means justify the ends.
If Bobby keeps pushing cases to plea bargains, he might not be maintaining professional responsibility to his clients; and he may be angering prosecutors because he is making a mockery of the court system. But the more cases Bobby pushes to plea bargain, the more money he gets. Bobby is happy with the teleological framework because the ends justify the means.
I think Bobby should stick to the deontological framework, and use plea bargains sparingly when the situation calls for it, and when all players in the courtroom agree.
Blahism: Law Enforcement Deviance
One of the biggest police scandals ever to take place in American history was the Rampart Scandal. The Community-Resources-Against-Street-Hoodlums (CRASH) units that were formed to battle gang and drug activity became an additional terror to the already terrorized streets of Los Angeles. The city suffered at the hands of deviant law enforcement officers. They suffered the police brutality, officer involved shootings, excessive use of force; and they suffered the police perjury, covering up crimes, covering for other officers committing crimes, dropsy evidence, and false testimony. According to Officer Rafael Perez, who offered testimony against other officers for shorter jail time, CRASH officers “shot and killed or wounded unarmed suspects and innocent bystanders, planted guns on suspects after shooting them, fabricated evidence, framed defendants, and delayed calling an ambulance to give them time to fabricate a story to justify a shooting” (Rampart Review, 2000, p. 46).
It is unfortunate that a program that was designed to curb gang activity, drug trafficking, and violent crime led to the corruption of so many police officers. LAPD’s best drug and gang officers were assigned to Rampart; and from there the CRASH units took on a life of their own, and blatantly “ignored LAPD’s procedures and policies” (Rampart Review, 2000, p. 2). CRASH officers formed their own subculture of street-style police force, where the officers tried to fight fire with fire. Utilitarianism turned radical, and renegade officers wreaked havoc in the Rampart area. There was an obvious lack of control and discipline from management; the department often chose to look the other way, perhaps trying to honor the police code of ethics on loyalty. “The misconduct of CRASH officers went undetected because the Department’s managers ignored warning signs and failed to provide the leadership, oversight, management and supervision necessary to control this specialized unit” (Rampart Review, 2000, p. 43).
A couple of extremely publicized officer-involved crimes were added to the snowball that became the Rampart Scandal right before it crashed into LA (yes, a snowball in LA, use your imagination). Rampart CRASH Officer Kevin Gaines was shot and killed by Officer Frank Lyga, who was defending himself against Gaines’ road rage. As the story unfolded, Gaines was found to be on the payroll of Death Row Records, owned by Suge Knight, who is known to be associated with The Bloods (Carney, 2001). Also working for Death Row Records was Officer David Mack, who was later arrested and convicted for robbing a bank; and Officer Rafael Perez, who was arrested for stealing cocaine from the evidence room, and later worked with investigators bringing down the Rampart CRASH scandal. Perez and Mack were also on duty the night of the murder of Crip rapper, and known enemy of The Bloods, Notorious B.I.G. The murder is officially unsolved, because of botched investigations and police cover-ups; but Officers Perez and Mack are thought to be responsible for helping to carry out the murder and cover it up (Golab, 2000).
Since 1998, there have been claims and cases against officers involved in the Rampart scandal; Boards of Rights hearings, and a Board of Inquiry; an Internal Affairs and LAPD task force; and Special Enforcement Units to investigate the investigations. Some officers were acquitted, some were fired, and some resigned over the scandal. “Criminal investigations by the District Attorney’s Office, the United States Attorney’s Office, the LAPD and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are on-going” (Rampart Review, 2000, p. 46). The number of cases related to the Rampart scandal is still growing as more facts and details come to light.
While the wounds of the CRASH scandal to Los Angeles are still fresh, gangs continue to thrive in the Rampart area, and art continues to imitate life. A television show, The Shield, is based on Rampart; the movies Training Day, and Crash are based on the scandal; and the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is based on it as well (Wikipedia, 2008). The corruption of the Officers of the Los Angeles Police Department has left a bitter taste in the mouth of Americans across the nation. The people of the country want to believe that every branch of law enforcement is performing its duties of protecting and serving the public in their communities. When a scandal in law enforcement of the magnitude of the Rampart scandal busts open, the faith of the people is shaken; and they are less willing to trust the police.
Unfortunately, there will always be corruption on some scale in law enforcement; regardless of the fact that community members and law makers are working together to make sure that this does not happen again.
Carney, T. (2001). Live from death row. Frontline: L.A.P.D. Blues. PBS Web site
Retrieved on October 28, 2008
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/race/deathrow.html
Golab, J. (2000). Who killed biggie smalls? Salon.com. Web site retrieved on October,
28, 2008 http://arhive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/16/biggie/index/html
Rampart Interview Review http://www.lacity.org/oig/rirprpt.pdf
Wikipedia (2008). Rampart scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Scandal
It is unfortunate that a program that was designed to curb gang activity, drug trafficking, and violent crime led to the corruption of so many police officers. LAPD’s best drug and gang officers were assigned to Rampart; and from there the CRASH units took on a life of their own, and blatantly “ignored LAPD’s procedures and policies” (Rampart Review, 2000, p. 2). CRASH officers formed their own subculture of street-style police force, where the officers tried to fight fire with fire. Utilitarianism turned radical, and renegade officers wreaked havoc in the Rampart area. There was an obvious lack of control and discipline from management; the department often chose to look the other way, perhaps trying to honor the police code of ethics on loyalty. “The misconduct of CRASH officers went undetected because the Department’s managers ignored warning signs and failed to provide the leadership, oversight, management and supervision necessary to control this specialized unit” (Rampart Review, 2000, p. 43).
A couple of extremely publicized officer-involved crimes were added to the snowball that became the Rampart Scandal right before it crashed into LA (yes, a snowball in LA, use your imagination). Rampart CRASH Officer Kevin Gaines was shot and killed by Officer Frank Lyga, who was defending himself against Gaines’ road rage. As the story unfolded, Gaines was found to be on the payroll of Death Row Records, owned by Suge Knight, who is known to be associated with The Bloods (Carney, 2001). Also working for Death Row Records was Officer David Mack, who was later arrested and convicted for robbing a bank; and Officer Rafael Perez, who was arrested for stealing cocaine from the evidence room, and later worked with investigators bringing down the Rampart CRASH scandal. Perez and Mack were also on duty the night of the murder of Crip rapper, and known enemy of The Bloods, Notorious B.I.G. The murder is officially unsolved, because of botched investigations and police cover-ups; but Officers Perez and Mack are thought to be responsible for helping to carry out the murder and cover it up (Golab, 2000).
Since 1998, there have been claims and cases against officers involved in the Rampart scandal; Boards of Rights hearings, and a Board of Inquiry; an Internal Affairs and LAPD task force; and Special Enforcement Units to investigate the investigations. Some officers were acquitted, some were fired, and some resigned over the scandal. “Criminal investigations by the District Attorney’s Office, the United States Attorney’s Office, the LAPD and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are on-going” (Rampart Review, 2000, p. 46). The number of cases related to the Rampart scandal is still growing as more facts and details come to light.
While the wounds of the CRASH scandal to Los Angeles are still fresh, gangs continue to thrive in the Rampart area, and art continues to imitate life. A television show, The Shield, is based on Rampart; the movies Training Day, and Crash are based on the scandal; and the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is based on it as well (Wikipedia, 2008). The corruption of the Officers of the Los Angeles Police Department has left a bitter taste in the mouth of Americans across the nation. The people of the country want to believe that every branch of law enforcement is performing its duties of protecting and serving the public in their communities. When a scandal in law enforcement of the magnitude of the Rampart scandal busts open, the faith of the people is shaken; and they are less willing to trust the police.
Unfortunately, there will always be corruption on some scale in law enforcement; regardless of the fact that community members and law makers are working together to make sure that this does not happen again.
Carney, T. (2001). Live from death row. Frontline: L.A.P.D. Blues. PBS Web site
Retrieved on October 28, 2008
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/race/deathrow.html
Golab, J. (2000). Who killed biggie smalls? Salon.com. Web site retrieved on October,
28, 2008 http://arhive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/16/biggie/index/html
Rampart Interview Review http://www.lacity.org/oig/rirprpt.pdf
Wikipedia (2008). Rampart scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Scandal
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Fear Fact Breakdown
Fear starts in the brain, the thalamus directs signals; the amygdala produces emotion; the hippocampus brings up memories of fear. The prefrontal cortex determines the danger of the situation; and the hypothalamus activates "fight or flight"
Eyes widen, pupils dilate, eyebrows raise. Mouth opens, lips pull back. This helps you see further and take in more air. Other humans are able to recognize the look of fear, alerting them to danger. Fear is recognized in the brain faster than any other emotion.
The heart beats faster to deliver blood and oxygen to outer limbs, aiding in "fight or flight".
Because the amygdala is in hyper-drive, more memories are created in a moment of fear than in one of relaxation. Because there are more memories created when one is scared, it seems like that moment was longer than it actually was.
Small moments of fear are not harmful to your health, some people (like me) enjoy getting scared. It's an adrenaline rush.
Eyes widen, pupils dilate, eyebrows raise. Mouth opens, lips pull back. This helps you see further and take in more air. Other humans are able to recognize the look of fear, alerting them to danger. Fear is recognized in the brain faster than any other emotion.
The heart beats faster to deliver blood and oxygen to outer limbs, aiding in "fight or flight".
Because the amygdala is in hyper-drive, more memories are created in a moment of fear than in one of relaxation. Because there are more memories created when one is scared, it seems like that moment was longer than it actually was.
Small moments of fear are not harmful to your health, some people (like me) enjoy getting scared. It's an adrenaline rush.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Lunatic Drug Warriors
Lunatic Drug Warriors Still Ignore Powerful Pot Science
By Rob Kampia, AlterNet. Posted September 8, 2008.
Twenty years ago a DEA chief judge concluded that doctors should be allowed to prescribe pot -- and the government is still ignoring his ruling...
click on title to read the rest of this article
By Rob Kampia, AlterNet. Posted September 8, 2008.
Twenty years ago a DEA chief judge concluded that doctors should be allowed to prescribe pot -- and the government is still ignoring his ruling...
click on title to read the rest of this article
Stoned Age
Stoners Before the Stone Age: Getting High Is as Old as Dirt
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, The Telegraph (UK). Posted October 20, 2008.
click on title to read article
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, The Telegraph (UK). Posted October 20, 2008.
click on title to read article
Don't Tread On Me
The War on Pot Is a War on Young People
By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted October 17, 2008.
click on title to read article
By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted October 17, 2008.
click on title to read article
Prop 5
Former Warden of San Quentin Prison Supports Dramatic Justice Reform Initiative in CA
Posted by Jan Frel, AlterNet at 4:36 PM on October 24, 2008.
click on title to read article
Posted by Jan Frel, AlterNet at 4:36 PM on October 24, 2008.
click on title to read article
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind--For Real
http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/10/23/technology-selectively-erases-memories/3185.html
Scientists in China have created a technology that can erase certain targeted memories in lab mice. They do this by over-expressing a protein critical to brain cell communication just as the memory is recalled.
Interesting stuff. It's only a matter of time before the U.S. Government gets hold of this new technology and starts using it as a weapon, or a means to commit illegal activity.
Scientists in China have created a technology that can erase certain targeted memories in lab mice. They do this by over-expressing a protein critical to brain cell communication just as the memory is recalled.
Interesting stuff. It's only a matter of time before the U.S. Government gets hold of this new technology and starts using it as a weapon, or a means to commit illegal activity.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
He Really Can't Help It
Wow. Watch Cindy flinch in the background.
Click on title above to watch John McCain make a terrible slip of the tongue.
http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=88fad82995542
Free Dr. Pepper
Dr. Pepper promised to give every American a free soda if Guns n Roses actually released their 17-year-in-the-making album Chinese Democracy by the end of 2008. The album is set to be released on Nov. 23rd. You can register to get a coupon for your free soda at www.drpepper.com
Discrimination Pure and Simple
Just click on the title above to check out this video from PerezHilton.com
This almost brought tears to my eyes. Very moving speech from Harvey Milk.
http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=d8d9fa7233202
This almost brought tears to my eyes. Very moving speech from Harvey Milk.
http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=d8d9fa7233202
Blahism: Undercover Operations
“Undercover work is ethical when it is carried out by persons of upright character in accountable organizations” (Pollock, 2004, p. 210). I am an extreme optimist, maybe even naïve, when it comes to trusting people. I like to believe that people are generally good, especially people that are officers of the law. I am not, however, so naïve that I believe there is not some unethical behavior going on in law enforcement. From a utilitarian view point, undercover work is justifiable if the organizations, and the officers, are conducting their investigation with the very noble intentions of bringing down a dangerous criminal. An officer must have a strong personality, with goodwill, in order to deal with the feelings that accompany lying and betrayal. They must believe they are doing the right thing, and maintain their integrity.
I think the test that Cohen (1991) proposes is a good guideline for ethical undercover operations:
1. The end must be justified as a good- for instance, conviction of a serious criminal rather than general intelligence gathering.
2. The means must be a plausible way to achieve the end- for example, choosing a target with no reasonable suspicion is not a plausible way to reduce any type of crime.
3. There must be no better alternative means to achieve the same end: no less-intrusive means or methods of collecting evidence exist.
4. The means must not undermine some other equal or greater end; that is, if the method results in loss of trust or faith in the legal system, it fails the test (Pollock, 2004, pp. 209, 211).
Bringing up the concerns of seemingly innocent Americans inadvertently targeted by undercover police officers, Pollock raises the question “are we comfortable in a society where the person who offers you drugs or sex or a cheap way to hook into cable turns out to be an undercover police officer”? If this were to happen to me, I would look at it as the officer is doing their job, and if I am stupid enough to engage in the illegal activities then I deserve to be punished.
Blahism: Exclusionary Rule
Dear Congress:
I am writing this letter to convince you that the exclusionary rule needs to be repealed. The personal rights of the Fourth Amendment can still be respected without enforcing the exclusionary rule, by redefining, and adhering to “probable cause”. Thus, illegally obtained evidence should be allowed in a trial if the evidence clearly proves a suspect’s guilt. As an alternative to the exclusionary rule, statutes should be enforced upon unruly law enforcement officers who knowingly violate a person’s rights, as described in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
The Fourth Amendment ensures “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized”. Obviously this amendment was designed for regular, law-abiding citizens, and not for the protection of criminals. The problem with the way it was written is that there is no clear language describing what action should be taken in the event that an illegal search and/or seizure has taken place. The courts need to be proactive in reprimanding unacceptable behavior from law enforcement, instead of enforcing a rule that potentially lets criminals run free more than it prevents illegal searches and seizures. The constitution provides citizens the right to not be subjected to illegal searches, that law enforcement must have a warranted probable cause. Punishing law enforcement by letting a criminal go because of compromised evidence is also punishing the community, while protecting the criminal. There is something wrong with this system.
If an officer acts on suspicion and searches a home without a warrant, and if that officer finds the murder weapon of a high-profile homicide; then that evidence should be admissible in court. Of course, the officer should also face an internal investigation and punishment as necessary for illegally searching someone’s home; but, that punishment should be separate from the punishment of the criminal. Just because the officer did not have a warrant does not make the evidence any less incriminating, or the criminal any less guilty. Police should be granted some sort of exception for illegal searches that turn up evidence. The offending officers should receive a suspension, without pay, to discourage continued illegal practices. If an illegal search produces no substantial evidence, then the offending officers should be fired. If a suspect is guilty, if there is evidence to be found, the police need to play by the book and get a warrant with specific details of what is to be searched and seized.
In Weeks v. U.S. (232 U.S. 383), the defendant was victim of illegal search and seizure; agreeably, the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. With the evidence, as was proved during the trial, however, the defendant was found guilty. The defendant broke the law, but so did the police; so both should be punished. Instead, the court decided that, as punishment to the officers, the illegally obtained evidence should not have been allowed as evidence in the trial. Thus, in 1914, the exclusionary rule was born. Maybe the police should have returned all the confiscated items to the defendant, but also have a legal search and seizure warrant waiting to reclaim the evidence. Instead, in 1961, “the exclusionary rule was extended to apply to state and local police” in Mapp v. Ohio (Neubauer, 2001, p. 65). There may not be a very large percentage of criminals who are set free because of the exclusionary rule, “less than one out of 100 police arrests are declined for prosecution”; but even one out of 100 is still one too many (Neubauer, 2001, p. 66). It is true that the court should not overlook any type of illegal activity, including activity by the police; but they should not overlook one for another. Both parties should be prosecuted, police and criminal.
The exclusionary rule allows for a criminal to successfully commit a crime without punishment if evidence used was obtained illegally. This is not justice. Justice should be reasonable, as it was in Maryland v. Wilson (No. 95-1268). When state trooper David Hughes pulled over a speeding vehicle, he ordered the nervous-looking passenger out of the car. When the passenger exited the vehicle “a quantity of crack cocaine fell to the ground” (1997). The defendant tried to have evidence against him dismissed by claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated with illegal seizure. The Supreme Court upheld the rule of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, wherein it states “that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle, extends to passengers as well” (1997). The defendant in Weeks vs. U.S. was getting arrested anyway, they would have got a search warrant, and they should have got a search warrant. They could have waited, or maybe the court could have been reasonable and allowed the evidence anyway. The officers and marshal who conducted the illegal search and seizure should also have been punished, but not by freeing the criminal.
Instead of enforcing the exclusionary rule, the courts should allow law enforcement agencies to deal with renegade officers through Internal Affairs. Citizens who are victim of illegal search and seizure have their right to file a civil suit against the offending officers, or against the law enforcement agency. If the persons who file suit “are often disreputable persons toward whom juries are unsympathetic”, well, then that is the way it is (FindLaw, 2008). I would like to believe that a jury of peers would be more sympathetic to an innocent victim whose rights were trampled by law enforcement, than to a repeat offender who is trying to take advantage of the system; and also be able to differentiate between the two.
The exclusionary rule protects criminals, and punishes law enforcement while also punishing the citizens of the United States. It is possible to repeal the rule and still uphold the Constitution, protecting the rights of the people, and ensuring proper justice against law-breaking police officers and law enforcement officials. I appreciate Congress taking notice of this very important matter; and I look forward to the future abolishment of the exclusionary rule.
Sincerely,
Senator Jaimie Nutt (Tee Hee)
Non Partisan, California
References
FindLaw (2008). Enforcing the fourth amendment: The exclusionary rule. U.S.
Constitution: Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from Web site on October 20, 2008
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/06.html
Mapp v Ohio (1961). 367 U.S. 643. Retrieved from Web site on October, 20, 2008
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.htm
Maryland v. Wilson (1997). U.S. Supreme Court No. 95-1268. Retrieved from Web site
On October, 20, 2008 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/95-1268.html
Neubauer, D (2001). Debating crime: Rhetoric and reality. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Weeks v. U.S. (1914). 232 U.S. 383. Retrieved from Web site on October, 20, 2008
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/232/383.html
I am writing this letter to convince you that the exclusionary rule needs to be repealed. The personal rights of the Fourth Amendment can still be respected without enforcing the exclusionary rule, by redefining, and adhering to “probable cause”. Thus, illegally obtained evidence should be allowed in a trial if the evidence clearly proves a suspect’s guilt. As an alternative to the exclusionary rule, statutes should be enforced upon unruly law enforcement officers who knowingly violate a person’s rights, as described in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
The Fourth Amendment ensures “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized”. Obviously this amendment was designed for regular, law-abiding citizens, and not for the protection of criminals. The problem with the way it was written is that there is no clear language describing what action should be taken in the event that an illegal search and/or seizure has taken place. The courts need to be proactive in reprimanding unacceptable behavior from law enforcement, instead of enforcing a rule that potentially lets criminals run free more than it prevents illegal searches and seizures. The constitution provides citizens the right to not be subjected to illegal searches, that law enforcement must have a warranted probable cause. Punishing law enforcement by letting a criminal go because of compromised evidence is also punishing the community, while protecting the criminal. There is something wrong with this system.
If an officer acts on suspicion and searches a home without a warrant, and if that officer finds the murder weapon of a high-profile homicide; then that evidence should be admissible in court. Of course, the officer should also face an internal investigation and punishment as necessary for illegally searching someone’s home; but, that punishment should be separate from the punishment of the criminal. Just because the officer did not have a warrant does not make the evidence any less incriminating, or the criminal any less guilty. Police should be granted some sort of exception for illegal searches that turn up evidence. The offending officers should receive a suspension, without pay, to discourage continued illegal practices. If an illegal search produces no substantial evidence, then the offending officers should be fired. If a suspect is guilty, if there is evidence to be found, the police need to play by the book and get a warrant with specific details of what is to be searched and seized.
In Weeks v. U.S. (232 U.S. 383), the defendant was victim of illegal search and seizure; agreeably, the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. With the evidence, as was proved during the trial, however, the defendant was found guilty. The defendant broke the law, but so did the police; so both should be punished. Instead, the court decided that, as punishment to the officers, the illegally obtained evidence should not have been allowed as evidence in the trial. Thus, in 1914, the exclusionary rule was born. Maybe the police should have returned all the confiscated items to the defendant, but also have a legal search and seizure warrant waiting to reclaim the evidence. Instead, in 1961, “the exclusionary rule was extended to apply to state and local police” in Mapp v. Ohio (Neubauer, 2001, p. 65). There may not be a very large percentage of criminals who are set free because of the exclusionary rule, “less than one out of 100 police arrests are declined for prosecution”; but even one out of 100 is still one too many (Neubauer, 2001, p. 66). It is true that the court should not overlook any type of illegal activity, including activity by the police; but they should not overlook one for another. Both parties should be prosecuted, police and criminal.
The exclusionary rule allows for a criminal to successfully commit a crime without punishment if evidence used was obtained illegally. This is not justice. Justice should be reasonable, as it was in Maryland v. Wilson (No. 95-1268). When state trooper David Hughes pulled over a speeding vehicle, he ordered the nervous-looking passenger out of the car. When the passenger exited the vehicle “a quantity of crack cocaine fell to the ground” (1997). The defendant tried to have evidence against him dismissed by claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated with illegal seizure. The Supreme Court upheld the rule of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, wherein it states “that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle, extends to passengers as well” (1997). The defendant in Weeks vs. U.S. was getting arrested anyway, they would have got a search warrant, and they should have got a search warrant. They could have waited, or maybe the court could have been reasonable and allowed the evidence anyway. The officers and marshal who conducted the illegal search and seizure should also have been punished, but not by freeing the criminal.
Instead of enforcing the exclusionary rule, the courts should allow law enforcement agencies to deal with renegade officers through Internal Affairs. Citizens who are victim of illegal search and seizure have their right to file a civil suit against the offending officers, or against the law enforcement agency. If the persons who file suit “are often disreputable persons toward whom juries are unsympathetic”, well, then that is the way it is (FindLaw, 2008). I would like to believe that a jury of peers would be more sympathetic to an innocent victim whose rights were trampled by law enforcement, than to a repeat offender who is trying to take advantage of the system; and also be able to differentiate between the two.
The exclusionary rule protects criminals, and punishes law enforcement while also punishing the citizens of the United States. It is possible to repeal the rule and still uphold the Constitution, protecting the rights of the people, and ensuring proper justice against law-breaking police officers and law enforcement officials. I appreciate Congress taking notice of this very important matter; and I look forward to the future abolishment of the exclusionary rule.
Sincerely,
Senator Jaimie Nutt (Tee Hee)
Non Partisan, California
References
FindLaw (2008). Enforcing the fourth amendment: The exclusionary rule. U.S.
Constitution: Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from Web site on October 20, 2008
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/06.html
Mapp v Ohio (1961). 367 U.S. 643. Retrieved from Web site on October, 20, 2008
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.htm
Maryland v. Wilson (1997). U.S. Supreme Court No. 95-1268. Retrieved from Web site
On October, 20, 2008 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/95-1268.html
Neubauer, D (2001). Debating crime: Rhetoric and reality. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Weeks v. U.S. (1914). 232 U.S. 383. Retrieved from Web site on October, 20, 2008
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/232/383.html
Sunday, October 19, 2008
New-Kew-Lar
http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=be9814b476943
click on title above or copy and paste link to watch a funny Sarah Palin Re-mix.
click on title above or copy and paste link to watch a funny Sarah Palin Re-mix.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Message To Sarah Palin
Click on the title above to watch a video on PerezHilton.com about what the young women of America have to say to Sarah Palin.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Finally!
Caylee's mom named in murder indictment
* Story Highlights
* NEW: Mother arrested in traffic stop after swapping cars on highway
* Casey Anthony faces seven-count indictment that includes capital murder charge
* Grand jury heard from police, dog handler, FBI agent, missing child's grandfather
* Caylee Anthony reported missing in July, about a month after last known sighting
From Natisha Lance
Nancy Grace Producer
ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) -- The mother of missing Florida toddler Caylee Anthony was arrested Tuesday in a traffic stop, shortly after a grand jury indicted her on seven counts, including capital murder, for the disappearance of her 3-year-old daughter.
Casey Anthony was taken to jail after officers observed her switch cars on a highway and pulled her over, an Orange County Sheriff's Department spokesman said.
Earlier Tuesday, Anthony's lawyer said his client would turn herself in if the grand jury returned an indictment against her.
"She's not running from this," attorney Jose Baez said as his 22-year-old client wiped tears from her eyes during an impromptu media briefing before the charges against her were announced. "She's doing her best to stand strong, to stand up to the powers that are working against her. And they threw the kitchen sink at her a long time ago."
After the indictment, undercover officers followed Anthony as she traveled in her mother's SUV. The officers saw the SUV stop under a highway overpass, at which point Anthony got into another vehicle and drove off. Officers made the traffic stop after she entered the second vehicle, the spokesman said.
Prosecutors are asking Anthony be held without bond.
Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police.
Lawson Lamar, the state attorney for Orange County, Florida, said the first count is a capital charge -- which could carry a penalty of life in prison or death.
The 19 grand jurors -- 10 women and nine men -- deliberated for about half an hour after hearing from police, a cadaver dog handler, an FBI agent and the missing child's grandfather.
Authorities were quick to remind the public that, despite the indictment, Caylee's whereabouts remain a mystery.
"Despite the charges against Ms. Anthony we have not achieved our objective," he said. "We have not found little Caylee Anthony."
Before her arrest, Anthony's lawyer continued to maintain her innocence.
"She has been living a nightmare," the attorney added. "She has a missing child. She's also a child."
Earlier in the day, Casey Anthony's father -- Caylee's grandfather -- testified before the grand jury. The panel was convened to look into the suspicious circumstances surrounding the child's disappearance.
George Anthony was prepared to do the "unthinkable" -- testify against his own daughter, lawyer Mark Nejame told a clutch of reporters gathered on the courthouse steps Tuesday morning.
Struggling with his emotions, George Anthony clutched a "find Caylee" binder in his folded arms.
"This is going to be very hard for me to do. The focus has always been on my granddaughter and always will be. I love my daughter, I love my wife, I love my son," Anthony said.
He asked for the public to keep his family, especially Caylee, in their prayers. "If someone could take a moment out at 11 o'clock this morning and 11 o'clock tonight and just pray for her. That's all I'm asking for. That's all I can say."
Anthony and his lawyer left the courthouse about an hour later without commenting.
Caylee Anthony disappeared in mid-June, but Casey Anthony waited about a month before telling her family the child was gone. Cindy Anthony -- Caylee's grandmother -- called the Orange County sheriff July 15 after her daughter wouldn't tell her where Caylee was.
Casey's brother, Lee Anthony, also pleaded with his sister to tell him where Caylee was. According to police documents, she replied that she hadn't seen Caylee in "31 days."
Investigators say that since that first 911 call, evidence has mounted that leads police to believe that Caylee is dead. They first labeled Casey Anthony a person of interest, and later, a suspect.
The story of Anthony and her missing daughter garnered national headlines, provided nightly fodder for cable TV crime shows and brought a stampede of reporters to stake out the home of Anthony's parents. See a timeline of key events »
Tempers have flared and fists have flown outside the house tucked away in a subdivision in Orlando, Florida. One protester had George Anthony arrested, alleging that he had pushed her.
Police and prosecutors have said little, instead letting hundreds of pages of documents and investigative reports do the talking for them.
Casey Anthony behaved like a carefree party girl, going to nightclubs, entering "hot-body" contests and incessantly sending text messages to her friends while her daughter was missing, according to cell phone and text transcripts and investigative reports released by police.
Copies of her phone and text records obtained by police and released to the public show she hardly ever mentioned her missing daughter during the time just before and after the child was reported missing. The young mother referred to Caylee as "the little snot head" in May, about a month before the child disappeared.
Anthony gave conflicting statements during the investigation and provided police with information that later was disproved. For example, she said she had dropped the child off with a baby sitter. Yet when police checked out her story, they learned that the address that Anthony supplied belonged to an apartment that had been vacant for weeks. The woman Anthony named as the baby sitter said she did not know Anthony.
As Anthony was arrested on child neglect charges, bonded out of jail, was rearrested on bad check and theft charges and bonded out again, investigators disclosed some of the forensic evidence they uncovered.
Cadaver dogs picked up the scent of death in the trunk of a car Anthony drove and in her parents' backyard. A neighbor told police Anthony had asked to borrow a shovel.
Authorities said that in the car Anthony drove, they found traces of chloroform, which can cause loss of consciousness. And they said that on her computer, they found Internet searches of missing children and chloroform Web sites.
Investigators said air quality tests conducted by the FBI found evidence of human decomposition in the trunk of Anthony's car. Law enforcement sources also suggested that a strand of hair found in the trunk of the car was probably Caylee's.
* Story Highlights
* NEW: Mother arrested in traffic stop after swapping cars on highway
* Casey Anthony faces seven-count indictment that includes capital murder charge
* Grand jury heard from police, dog handler, FBI agent, missing child's grandfather
* Caylee Anthony reported missing in July, about a month after last known sighting
From Natisha Lance
Nancy Grace Producer
ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) -- The mother of missing Florida toddler Caylee Anthony was arrested Tuesday in a traffic stop, shortly after a grand jury indicted her on seven counts, including capital murder, for the disappearance of her 3-year-old daughter.
Casey Anthony was taken to jail after officers observed her switch cars on a highway and pulled her over, an Orange County Sheriff's Department spokesman said.
Earlier Tuesday, Anthony's lawyer said his client would turn herself in if the grand jury returned an indictment against her.
"She's not running from this," attorney Jose Baez said as his 22-year-old client wiped tears from her eyes during an impromptu media briefing before the charges against her were announced. "She's doing her best to stand strong, to stand up to the powers that are working against her. And they threw the kitchen sink at her a long time ago."
After the indictment, undercover officers followed Anthony as she traveled in her mother's SUV. The officers saw the SUV stop under a highway overpass, at which point Anthony got into another vehicle and drove off. Officers made the traffic stop after she entered the second vehicle, the spokesman said.
Prosecutors are asking Anthony be held without bond.
Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police.
Lawson Lamar, the state attorney for Orange County, Florida, said the first count is a capital charge -- which could carry a penalty of life in prison or death.
The 19 grand jurors -- 10 women and nine men -- deliberated for about half an hour after hearing from police, a cadaver dog handler, an FBI agent and the missing child's grandfather.
Authorities were quick to remind the public that, despite the indictment, Caylee's whereabouts remain a mystery.
"Despite the charges against Ms. Anthony we have not achieved our objective," he said. "We have not found little Caylee Anthony."
Before her arrest, Anthony's lawyer continued to maintain her innocence.
"She has been living a nightmare," the attorney added. "She has a missing child. She's also a child."
Earlier in the day, Casey Anthony's father -- Caylee's grandfather -- testified before the grand jury. The panel was convened to look into the suspicious circumstances surrounding the child's disappearance.
George Anthony was prepared to do the "unthinkable" -- testify against his own daughter, lawyer Mark Nejame told a clutch of reporters gathered on the courthouse steps Tuesday morning.
Struggling with his emotions, George Anthony clutched a "find Caylee" binder in his folded arms.
"This is going to be very hard for me to do. The focus has always been on my granddaughter and always will be. I love my daughter, I love my wife, I love my son," Anthony said.
He asked for the public to keep his family, especially Caylee, in their prayers. "If someone could take a moment out at 11 o'clock this morning and 11 o'clock tonight and just pray for her. That's all I'm asking for. That's all I can say."
Anthony and his lawyer left the courthouse about an hour later without commenting.
Caylee Anthony disappeared in mid-June, but Casey Anthony waited about a month before telling her family the child was gone. Cindy Anthony -- Caylee's grandmother -- called the Orange County sheriff July 15 after her daughter wouldn't tell her where Caylee was.
Casey's brother, Lee Anthony, also pleaded with his sister to tell him where Caylee was. According to police documents, she replied that she hadn't seen Caylee in "31 days."
Investigators say that since that first 911 call, evidence has mounted that leads police to believe that Caylee is dead. They first labeled Casey Anthony a person of interest, and later, a suspect.
The story of Anthony and her missing daughter garnered national headlines, provided nightly fodder for cable TV crime shows and brought a stampede of reporters to stake out the home of Anthony's parents. See a timeline of key events »
Tempers have flared and fists have flown outside the house tucked away in a subdivision in Orlando, Florida. One protester had George Anthony arrested, alleging that he had pushed her.
Police and prosecutors have said little, instead letting hundreds of pages of documents and investigative reports do the talking for them.
Casey Anthony behaved like a carefree party girl, going to nightclubs, entering "hot-body" contests and incessantly sending text messages to her friends while her daughter was missing, according to cell phone and text transcripts and investigative reports released by police.
Copies of her phone and text records obtained by police and released to the public show she hardly ever mentioned her missing daughter during the time just before and after the child was reported missing. The young mother referred to Caylee as "the little snot head" in May, about a month before the child disappeared.
Anthony gave conflicting statements during the investigation and provided police with information that later was disproved. For example, she said she had dropped the child off with a baby sitter. Yet when police checked out her story, they learned that the address that Anthony supplied belonged to an apartment that had been vacant for weeks. The woman Anthony named as the baby sitter said she did not know Anthony.
As Anthony was arrested on child neglect charges, bonded out of jail, was rearrested on bad check and theft charges and bonded out again, investigators disclosed some of the forensic evidence they uncovered.
Cadaver dogs picked up the scent of death in the trunk of a car Anthony drove and in her parents' backyard. A neighbor told police Anthony had asked to borrow a shovel.
Authorities said that in the car Anthony drove, they found traces of chloroform, which can cause loss of consciousness. And they said that on her computer, they found Internet searches of missing children and chloroform Web sites.
Investigators said air quality tests conducted by the FBI found evidence of human decomposition in the trunk of Anthony's car. Law enforcement sources also suggested that a strand of hair found in the trunk of the car was probably Caylee's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)