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.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)