Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Look at what is happening to the death penalty

From the Death Penalty Information Center ...

RECENT LEGISLATION: Governor's Signature Makes Connecticut Fifth State in Five Years to End Death Penalty
On April 25, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (pictured) signed into law a bill that replaces the death penalty with life without parole. Connecticut is the fifth state in five years, and the 17th overall, to do away with capital punishment. Governor Malloy, who once supported the death penalty, offered the following statement: “My position on the appropriateness of the death penalty in our criminal justice system evolved over a long period of time. As a young man, I was a death penalty supporter. Then I spent years as a prosecutor and pursued dangerous felons in court, including murderers. In the trenches of a criminal courtroom, I learned firsthand that our system of justice is very imperfect. While it’s a good system designed with the highest ideals of our democratic society in mind, like most of human experience, it is subject to the fallibility of those who participate in it. I saw people who were poorly served by their counsel. I saw people wrongly accused or mistakenly identified. I saw discrimination. In bearing witness to those things, I came to believe that doing away with the death penalty was the only way to ensure it would not be unfairly imposed." See more of the governor's statement below.



On April 23, the SAFE California Act, an initiative to replace California’s death penalty with a sentence of life without parole, qualified for the November 2012 ballot by presenting an ample number of qualified signatures. The initiative garnered almost 800,000 signatures for the measure that would repeal the death penalty and make capital crimes punishable by life in prison without parole. The initiative would also require inmates to work in prison to help pay restitution to the families of victims, and would send $30 million annually for three years to local law enforcement agencies to help solve murder and rape cases. Ron Briggs, who sponsored the 1978 initiative that expanded the death penalty in California, recently expressed support for repeal of the law. In a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Briggs endorsed the SAFE California campaign, saying “I still believe that society must be protected from the most heinous criminals, and that they don't deserve to ever again be free. But I'd like to see them serve their terms with the general prison population, where they could be required to work and pay restitution into the victims' compensation fund. There are few 'do-overs' in life, especially in politics. With the death penalty, though, 34 years later I have an opportunity to set things right.”


It is slow, but it is sure. The death penalty is dying in America.

Monday, April 23, 2012

USA: Incarceration Nation

In class and the book I argued that the mainstream media rarely critically cover corrections, and that life inside prisons and jails is largely unknown to most. I also pointed out that this is changing with shows like "Lockup." And I claimed that stories about the enormous costs of corrections are becoming more popular given the current economic crisis.

Along comes CBS News to prove the point. Its Sunday story--"Incarceration Nation"--illustrates how prison and jail populations are killing us. And states are now finally waking up to that fact and taking steps to do something about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7406184n&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsVideo+%28News+Video%3A+CBSNews.com%29

Remember my song, "We're number one in incarceration, that's why we are the prison nation!" See, I told you so!


Friday, April 20, 2012

Top movies now and ever ...

Just as with TV shows, the top rated movies deal MOSTLY with issues of crime and criminal justice.

Look at the top 10 movies of all time as rated by users at IMDb.com:

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

And then there are the top 10 currently playing films as rated by Fandango.com:

http://www.fandango.com/top10fanratedmovies

And then there are box office results which you can examine for any time period.

What do MOST of these movies have in common?

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Take a look at the top TV shows right now

From TVGUIDE.COM:

http://www.tvguide.com/top-tv-shows

From TV.COM:

http://www.tv.com/shows/

And from Nielson:

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/top10s/television.html

How many deal with crime, criminal justice, violence, conflict, etc.?

How many are just mindless entertainment?

Those are the top shows on TV today!

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Death penalty in the news again today

From the LA Times:

The fight against the death penalty is gaining momentum, opponents of the practice say, with Connecticut's decision this month to abolish capital punishment making it the fifth state in five years to so do.

"For this to be happening in succession, and coupled with the decline in death penalty convictions, it creates a momentum that other states will at least consider to be a part of," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the independent Death Penalty Information Center.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-death-penalty-20120415,0,4967063.story

And a lot of what is motivating these actions is costs. The death penalty just costs more.

For example, here is yet another example from yet another study or yet another state:

COSTS: Death Penalty Cases in Nevada Cost $200K Extra, Just for Defense

A recent study of the death penalty in Nevada compared the costs of defending capital and non-capital murder cases. The study, conducted by Dr. Terance Miethe of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, looked at the time spent by defense attorneys at various stages of a case. The study’s findings included:
- Clark County public defense attorneys spent an average of 2,298 hours on a capital murder case compared to an average of 1,087 hours on a non-capital murder case--a difference of 1,211 hours, or 112%.
- Defending the average capital murder case in Clark County cost $229,800 for a Public Defender or $287,250 for appointed counsel. The additional cost of capital murder cases was $170,000 to $212,000 per case compared to the cost of a non-capital murder case in the same county.
- The 80 pending capital murder cases in Clark County will cost approximately $15 million more than if they were prosecuted without seeking the death penalty.


It really says something about us that we are so heavily influenced by money, and that we make decisions about whether to pursue policies that ought to be influenced by concerns for justice rather than by money. But at least states are looking at the issue of capital punishment again.

Monday, April 16, 2012

We are going "self-defense" crazy

First there was the case of George Zimmerman shooting and killing Trayvon Martin in cold blood.

And you can thank her for that ...

One of the chief architects of Florida's controversial law is a petite granny gone gray. No matter what their position is on guns, Florida lawmakers respect Marion Hammer. FULL STORY | FLORIDA TASK FORCE REVIEWS THE LAW  FLORIDA TASK FORCE REVIEWS THE LAW

Second, there is this!

The man accused in the deaths of 77 people in a bomb and gun rampage in Norway last summer admitted the killings as his trial began Monday. "I was doing it in self-defense," Anders Behring Breivik said. FULL STORY

There is even a case near Boone of one man killing another with a knife (both were stabbed). The man who is alive, a rental tenant, claims self-defense against his landlord.

People, is your life really that important in the big scheme of things?

Friday, April 13, 2012

Oh and then there is this from the New York Times!

"... the system cannot [of capital punishment] be fixed. It is practically impossible to rid the legal process of biases driven by race, class and politics."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/more-evidence-against-the-death-penalty.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share

Death penalty in Florida, Connecticut, and California in the news!

In Florida, a man was just executed for a murder he committed more than 28 years ago!

Reading this article that made the front page of Fox News made me think, yet again, does the death penalty bring closure?

Whatever you think of the death penalty, you have to seriously be bothered by cases like this one.

David Alan Gore, 58, was pronounced dead at 6:19 p.m. Thursday after receiving an injection at the Florida State Prison, officials said.

Asked if he had a final statement, Gore said as he lay strapped to a gurney: "Yes, I do."

"I want to say to the Elliott family [the victim he killed for which he was sentenced to death], I am sorry for the death of your daughter. I am not the man I was back then, 28 years ago. I am a Christian. Christ lives within me. I hope you all can find peace today," Gore said.

Making no eye contact with the family, he added that he hoped the family could "find it in their hearts to forgive me" and concluded: "I don't fear death."

28 years after a horrible crime, and a family is finally given a conclusion to the case? Yeah, that sounds effective!
 
How do family members feel? Here are some of their reactions:

Elliott's parents had said as Thursday's execution time approached that this was the day they have been waiting for — a date many thought should have come years ago, considering there was no doubt he committed the crimes and he had shown no remorse for the killings.

"For us it's been a nightmare, because I just turned 81. I was beginning to think that I might die before he went," said Carl Elliott, the girl's father, recently.

And ...

"I've been waiting for this day for years. I would've saved the state a lot of money if they let me. I'd do it myself and have no qualms about it," said Mike Daley, whose wife, Judy Kay Daley was killed by Gore in July 1981.

So you see what the death penalty does for us? To us?

And California is being urged to by the very person who wrote the law 34 years ago!
 
Check that out here:
 
 
 

Thursday, April 12, 2012

One network, two corrections stories

Talk about unusual...a single news network has two stories about corrections on the same day:

  • Charles Manson denied parole


  • Connecticut to repeal death penalty


  • As you can tell, neither of these things happens every day. Perhaps that is why they are in the news!

    Oh yeah, and then there is this...he is in jail so I guess that counts as three!

    Affidavit Says Zimmerman 'Confronted' Unarmed Teen

    Court documents in murder case allege Trayvon Martin shooter 'profiled' the Florida teen, killed him

    Wednesday, April 11, 2012

    Jon Stewart tackles CNN

    As you know, Jon Stewart often criticizes Fox News. But there is plenty of blame to go around.
    Take CNN, for example. Is there another more ridiculous newscast on the air right now than on CNN?
    Watch as Jon Stewart questions their need for dozens of specific segment types across a 24 hour news cycle.


    Watch here:
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-10-2012/why----cnn-s-editorial-branding

    Monday, April 9, 2012

    Friday, April 6, 2012

    Today's news

    From CNN:


    From Fox News:



    And then there is this:


    Wait, this is supposed to be "GOOD" Friday, right?

    Wednesday, April 4, 2012

    A great example of the lack of CJ knowledge by the media

    In class and in the book, we talk about how media personnel are not informed about criminal justice. And this hurts their reporting about crime and criminal justice.

    Here is an example from Fox News today:

    • Pitcher's Widow Outraged As Killer Draws a Walk

      Neal Evans, who murdered Atlanta Braves pitcher Dave Shotkoski in 1995, released from jail 10 years early 

       ______________________________

      Gosh, that would be a tragedy if someone was released from JAIL 10 years early, because it would mean his sentence was negative 9 years.

      Because a jail sentence can be no longer than 1 year.

      Get it? 1 minus 10 = -9.

      Is there a difference between jail and prison?

      Clearly, the differences are many AND important. And any student in Introduction to Criminal Justice could tell you all about them.

      But not the media.

      Imagine the ignorance that is required to state not only that a murderer was released from jail early, but also to state he was sentenced to jail in the first place!

      Oh yeah, and notice the killer is black and the victim is white. Does that have anything to do with the outrage?

    Tuesday, April 3, 2012

    Now you can be strip searched after ANY arrest

    ... thanks to a 5-4 decision by the US Supreme court.

    So for any crime, any crime at all, if you are arrested and about to be jailed, prepare to bend over and cough.

    "Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information about gang affiliations."

    Even if they have no reason to suspect you of being in possession of contraband!

    "The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures."

    Nice, so now the Court is ignoring state legislative activity, typically used by the Court as an indicator of the right thing to do. Not in this case.

    What is at stake here is captured in what happened in the scenario that prompted the case: It "arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed an outstanding warrant for Mr. Florence’s arrest based on an unpaid fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)"

    Got that? A man was arrested for not paying a fine, a fine he actually paid. And he was jailed for it. And then strip searched! Twice! (because he was held for a week in two jails) 


    Just like the nun who was arrested for protesting US war. She was strip searched too.

    Now it is all legal! Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the decision, and said that exceptions to Monday’s ruling were still possible “to ensure that we ‘not embarrass the future.”

    Too late, sir!



    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share

    Monday, April 2, 2012

    Obama versus the US Supreme Court

    As you know, the US Supreme Court has heard challenges to the Obama health care law, often called by its more cuddly name, "Obamacare."



    The Court set aside six hours of hearings over three days, as opposed to the normal one hour normally reserved by the Court. That should give you a sense of the complexity of the case, if not the importance.

    You listen to the entire argument as well as read analysis here (New York Times).

    The issues:

    1) Does the Court have authority to decide the fate of the law in the first place
    2) Can Congress require you to buy health insurance (the individual mandate)?
    3) If the Court invalidates the individual mandate, can that be severed from the rest of the law or does the whole law become invalid?
    4) What about the Medicaid expansion?

    The Justices are now deciding these issues in private. The process is unknown to most, but insiders to the Court have written about the process of bargaining between Justices, a process that sounds pretty disgusting to me. Imagine, for example, agreeing to conclude something to please another Justice or to get his or her vote on another case.

    Yes, it is entirely up to us.


    Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and publisher of SCOTUSblog.com, recently said: "This case is on a rocket ship. Because there may be as many as four decisions, the justices work collaboratively. The majority opinion writer circulates it for other people to comment, dissenters will circulate their opinions and that process will go back and forth, back and forth until about mid-June, when they will just get down to finalize it."
     
    So we will know the fate of this law in June. Predictions are all over the web. I already made the outlandish prediction that the Court will uphold the law, 7-2. But if I were a betting man, I'd go with 5-4 to overturn it.

    Clearly, some people love the law. Others, not so much.


    Personally, I wonder how many of these people have read the law (virtually none of them) or even know what it does (probably a tiny fraction of them).

    Things like:

    * Insurance companies cannot hike my rate without approval from an independent panel
    * They cannot put a cap of lifetime coverage for a serious condtion
    * They cannot refuse me coverage based on preexisting conditions
    * They cannot charge women more than men for the same insurance
    * They will start offering free preventive health screenings
    * Checkups and immunizations are offered for my children for free
    * An insurance exchange is created to allow me to buy coverage across state lines to find the best deal for my family

    Not to mention, millions of people who do not have insurance will finally get it. The only way to make sure this happens is to require people to buy insurance for those who can afford to buy it. That is, the law requires people who can afford to buy insurance to buy insurance from a private for-profit company based on the premise that it is your responsibility as a citizen to take care of yourself rather than to not buy insurance but continue to use the health care system (e.g., emergency room visits) and force everyone else to pay for your illness or injury.

    This is a conservative principle based on conservative ideas going back at least to 1989!

    So what is so controversial about this law anyway?

    Sunday, April 1, 2012

    "Trayvon Martin case exposes worst in media"

    That is the title of a Yahoo News article today.
    "The Trayvon Martin case has exposed some of the media's worst tendencies--selective editing, rushing to judgment, stoking anger for ratings and page views--and it's taken more than fake photos, the incendiary stumbles of Geraldo Rivera and Spike Lee and verbal clashes between Piers Morgan and Toure to shine a light on them."

    And the author goes on to provide only three examples of it.

    But of course these is so much more!

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-case-exposes-worst-media-210020839.html

    Wednesday, March 28, 2012

    Evidence slowly being leaked out in Trayvon Martin case

    From CNN:


    Surveillance video shows George Zimmerman arriving at the Sanford Police Department in handcuffs the night of the shooting. WATCH | OUTCRY | PUBLIC RECORDS

  • Answers few in Trayvon Martin case

  • Trayvon Martin: What witnesses say

  • Open Story: Trayvon rallies, opinions


  • And my favorite:


    It turns out you cannot wear a hat on the floor of Congress!

    And over at Fox News? Just this ...

    'Hoodie' protest gets rep booted from House
    - Palin: Obama should've kept quiet on Trayvon case


    (Palin is a paid Fox News consultant, thus her opinion is featured there).
    It is looking more and more like this is a standard manslaughter case, not self-defense. For example, in the video above, where is the bloody nose and cuts on the shooter that were supposedly present the night of the killing?

    But I do wish the media would wait for criminal justice officials to make this determination (and that those officials would do this a bit more quickly). 

    Monday, March 26, 2012

    An interesting take on race and the police

    So it looks like George Zimmerman might not have been a racist.

    Duh.

    And his shooting might have not been motivated specifically by race.

    Duh.


    I never said it was that simple. And anyone who did just does not know the reality of how race impacts perceptions of dangerousness for people like Zimmerman, a man who already had the mindset of a cop even though he was never going to be one.

    Police consider many factors as signs of potential dangerousness. Race is undeniably one of those factors.

    That is why I found this article about why African Americans don't trust the police to be so interesting. This perspective is consistent with the academic literature on the topic: Nationwide, blacks are far more likely to be stopped, questioned, detained, and searched, but only slightly more likely to be arrested. This is highly suggestive of racial profiling--using race as a warning sign of potential criminality.

    Even though it is not always found when scholars look for it, we know it exists some places at some times in policing. And regular citizens also do it, including George Zimmerman.

    On that night of Trayvon Martin's death, race clearly played a role in why Zimmerman followed Martin in the first place. A black kid with a hoodie is simply more suspicious than a white kid with a button up shirt, especially when the black kid is carrying something small and shiny in his hand (which was a can of iced tea).

    So, Zimmerman followed him. Even after being told not to by the police dispatcher.

    Ben Crump, a Martin family attorney, said this to NBC News: "Its real simple, if George Zimmerman had done what a neighborhood watchman is supposed to do -- watch -- Trayvon Martin would be alive today."

    "Trayvon Martin does not have to identify himself to a stranger," he noted. "George Zimmerman never identified who he was to Trayvon." "If he (Zimmerman) doesn't get out of the car ... if he doesn't act as if he's the police, none of this happens."

    So let's assume that Trayvon did beat Zimmerman up after he was confronted by him (police say Zimmerman had a broken nose and cut on the back of his head, inflicted by Trayvon). In that case, what Zimmerman did will likely be ruled self-defense. And Zimmerman will thus not be held accountable for Trayvon's death.

    But this does not mean that race did not play a role in the confrontation. Clearly it did. And that should remain the story in the news, even though it won't if Zimmerman is ultimately never arrested or charged for this heinous act.

    Friday, March 23, 2012

    Billionaire corporations behind RIGHT TO KILL laws

    Most of us choose to live our lives in the ideal world where law makers represent us and our representative of our interests.

    We think that laws are made because some act is immoral or harmful and thus needs to be legislated as a crime. We think legislators strive to protect us from crimes and thus make laws that do this very thing.

    And we are completely ignoring the reality of contemporary America.

    That reality is this:

    1) Laws are made by people who are in no way demographically representative of us. Specifically, lawmakers are older, whiter, richer, and "maler" than the average person. That is, the law is largely made by rich old white males.

    2) The people that vote for lawmakers are in most ways not demographically representative of us. Specifically, voters are are older, whiter, and richer than the average person.

    3) Most people do not regularly vote.

    4) Lawmakers spend a great portion of their time raising money to fund their political campaigns. In the case of winning US Senators this amounts to tens of thousands of dollars every day. And state legislators are also highly dependent on fundraising to win their seats.

    5) The candidate who raises and spends the most money almost always wins.

    6) Most of us do not give any substantial amount of money to political parties or candidates in any given year. Specifically, far less than 1% of American citizens give $200 or more in any given year.

    7) Money for political campaigns largely comes from the wealthy, corporations, Political Action Committees (PACs), and the Citizens United unleashed "Super PACs."

    So what does all this have to do with crime and criminal justice?

    It means the law will often represent the interests of the wealthy and powerful rather than us.

    Just ask the family of young Trayvon Martin, who was shot dead by wanna-be cop George Zimmerman three weeks ago in Sanford, Florida.

    Zimmerman told the police he acted in self-defense under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law (so he was not arrested and remains free as of today).

    The law allows a person to use deadly force when “he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.” Thus, if you think you or someone else is in danger, you can shoot to kill, regardless of whether the shooter is the one who initiated the hostile confrontation. You can also use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony, thus meaning you are authorized to pursue and confront others (including a black kid wearing a hoodie walking in the rain with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea).

    Interestingly, now at least 21 states have passed these laws. Given that crime and even violent crime have declined for decades, one might wonder why such laws are needed in the first place?

    Here is the shocking truth. The laws were written and promoted by a largely unknown group of rich people called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). As show in this article, the legislation was adopted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as model legislation and promoted across the country with the help of their allies in the National Rifle Association.

    According to the article:

    "Florida's statute on the use of force in self-defense is virtually identical to Section 1 of ALEC's Castle Doctrine Act model legislation as posted on the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). According to CMD, the model bill was adopted by ALEC's Civil Justice Task in August 2005 -- just a few short months after it passed the Florida legislature -- and approved by its board of directors the following month.
    Since the 2005 passage of Florida's law, similar statutes have been passed in 16 other states. This was no accident. In a 2008 interview with NRA News, ALEC resident fellow Michael Hough explained how his organization works with the NRA to push similar legislation through its network of conservative state legislators:
     
    "HOUGH: We are a very pro-Second Amendment organization. In fact, last session, I'll get off-topic here real quick, but some of the things that we were pushing in states was the Castle Doctrine. We worked with the NRA on that, that's one of our model bills that we have states introduce."

    What has been the impact of these new laws? Since these laws were enacted, the number of justifiable homicides recorded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has increased from about 200 per year to almost 300 per year, just as predicted by critics of the laws.


    In other words, more people are killing each other, the very opposite of what was expected by its promoters. In case you think the only people being killed are violent criminals, think of Trayvon Martin, whose only crime was "walking while black." Or any of these people.


    Amazingly, this is the same group--ALEC--that adopted, promoted, and wrote Arizona's tough "show me your papers" anti-illegal immigration law, a law that clearly will not end illegal immigration since it is supported by the private prison industry (who only makes money if it locks up people who enter the country illegally!). If immigration stops, they lose money, meaning the law clearly is not aimed at stopping immigration! PS, I blogged about this before.

    So what does all this mean?

    It is clear evidence that the criminal law often does not represent us or our interests. In the case of the laws promoted by groups like ALEC and passed by state legislatures--often with little or no debate and with little or no public support or influence--the laws often end up up literally killing us.

    Would you kindly take this money and consider this law for us? Thanks!


    So you think the mainstream media would be all over it, right?

    Nope. Silence.