The General Blog of Crime

Great Piece on Mass Incarceration from The New Yorker

2012-01-29T23:17:00.003-05:00

This essay from the New Yorker on mass incarceration is a must-read. Choice quote:

The scale and brutality of our prisons are the moral scandal of American life.

As astute and succinct a summary of mass incarceration as fourteen words can be.

(via The DailyDish)

This is Why We Have IRBs

2012-01-26T09:24:00.004-05:00

A colleague at another university posted this story today, about a young boy used in a psychological experiment in the 1920s:

Many of us (criminologists) have taken psychology courses, so you may be aware of the story of Little Albert, who was conditioned to fear a white rat. The researcher--John Watson--associated a loud "clang" with the rat so that the child learned to fear the rat. He also learned to fear anything generally "fuzzy" or rat-like.

Now, 90 years later, new information has come to light about the plight of Little Albert. According to two researchers looking into this case, he was not the "normal" child presented by the researcher. Rather, he had a neurological condition that likely exaggerated his response to the stimulus (the rat). It is highly likely the researcher knew this.

There are also serious concerns about the mother's role in the experiment. Specifically:

But there may have been less humanitarian reasons for choosing Merritte ["Little Albert"]. The authors write about the baby’s mother, Arvilla, who was a wet nurse at the hospital. Because wet nurses were of low social status, and because she worked for the institution itself, she may have felt unable to turn down a request for her baby to be used in Watson’s experiment. “Voluntary consent, as we understand the term today, was not possible to give or to withhold,” they write. Presumably, most parents, if given a choice, would not allow their babies to participate in an experiment in which researchers terrify them. But Arvilla found herself in a bind. She was dependent on her employer both for her job and for the medical care of her sick baby.

And THIS is why we have informed consent and follow IRB regulations.

Additional Sources for Instructors:

Beck, H.P., Levinson, S. & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64, 605-614.

Fridlund, A.J., Beck, H.P., Goldie, W.D. & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology (online 1/23/12).

Judge Forces Abortion on Mentally Ill Woman

2012-01-18T09:15:00.000-05:00

An interesting abortion story is emerging in Boston about a probate court judge who forced an abortion on a mentally ill woman. As part of his orders, the judge allowed her legal guardians (parents) to coerce or even lie to the woman to get her to the hospital and sedated. His orders then permitted a forced abortion and sterilization - both of which she clearly did not want. Today's Boston Herald provides a nice overview of the story. Not your typical abortion story but it raises some really interesting issues.

The Ongoing PSU Scandal: Perpetrators, Bystanders, and Rescuers

2011-11-25T20:35:00.004-05:00

I have taught classes on genocide at MSU for the past three years. One of these courses (“The Criminology of Genocide”) satisfies a general education requirement in social science, and I try very hard to impart to the students how studying the process of genocide can help them to understand the world around them.

As part of this effort, a substantial portion of all of my genocide courses focus on the behaviors of three groups of people:

Perpetrators: individuals who commit crimes during genocide, whether they play the role of a leader (in class we call these the “big bads”: Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) or those who commit murder, rape, theft, or a multitude of other small crimes during genocides.

Bystanders: individuals who do nothing. They standby and watch events unfold around them but do not become engaged in the violence—neither do they take action to stop or speak out against violence.

Rescuers: Those people who take extraordinary action to help those victimized in genocide. Many famous individuals are members of this group, including Paul Rusesabagina (“Hotel Rwanda”), Oscar Schindler (“Schindler’s List”) and Corrie ten Boom (while not well-known in the U.S., Corrie and her family helped dozens of Dutch Jews escape the Nazis).

While it’s quite easy to identify perpetrators and rescuers, there aren’t many names listed as famous “bystanders”. This certainly makes sense—we remember individuals for their actions (both good and bad), not their inactions.

It’s important to note that failure to act to stop a crime is itself criminal in some states. These types of laws were famously portrayed in the final episode of the sitcom Seinfeld, in which the main characters are incarcerated for failing to stop a robbery (and in fact, laughing about the weight of the victim).

When the Penn State scandal broke earlier this month, I spent time talking to my students about the alleged perpetrators, bystanders, and rescuers in this case. Based on the grand jury testimony, there appears to be one “big bad” perpetrator: Jerry Sandusky, accused of sexually molesting and raping at least eight young boys during his tenure at Penn State (with more victims apparently coming forward, one of whom is a family member).

What about the bystanders? Are they (and should they be) criminally liable? According to their lawyers, they met their due diligence by reporting the issue to supervisors, but who was legally mandated to call the police or child protective services?

As far as I can tell, there were no rescuers in this case. No one had the best interest of the child victims in mind, as far as we’ve heard so far.

Of course, while it is easy to point fingers after the fact, scholars have long recognized that it is easier to be a bystander than a rescuer. Our social norms of non-interference and conformity keep most of us from being rescuers. For example, Paul Rusesabagina put himself and his family at enormous risk by hiding Tutsi refugees in his hotel—how many of us would take that action, realistically? How many of us would risk our own lives—our CHILDREN’S lives—to help strangers? In a sense, it’s abnormal behavior.

However, while we may hesitate to do the right thing in the spur of the moment, we must realize that it’s never too late to call and report suspected criminal activity to the police.

If there is any positive aspect to the Penn State fiasco, perhaps people in similar roles who might otherwise act as bystanders take action and rescue those in need.

Gendered Subtext to the Penn State Scandal?

2011-11-11T17:07:00.006-05:00

The Penn State scandal is as sickening as they come, and understandably has inspired much anger and disgust.

I don't want to insert any more controversy into this situation than already exists, but...I have been thinking a lot about one aspect of this story and wanted to pose my ideas here. Lately I have been contemplating whether the actions of the PSU coaching staff and administrators would have differed had the victims in this case been girls rather than boys.

Consider this: imagine if Mike McQueary had walked in on Sandusky having sex with a 10-year old girl. Do you think he would he have acted differently? I think it is possible that the answer is yes, for two reasons. First, short of incest, man-boy sexual interactions are perhaps the most taboo in our society. I wonder about the extent to which there were concerns not just about potentially outing Sandusky as a pedophile, but as a gay pedophile. Second, male-on-female assault fits our mental image of "rape" much better than male-on-male assault. In a scenario involving Sandusky engaging in penile-vaginal penetration of a young girl, it would be difficult to imagine any eyewitness interpreting that as anything other than RAPE. But I think it is possible that the fact that Sandusky was with another male overrode the obvious and far more alarming fact that he was engaging in penile-anal penetration of a child. To be clear, I am not in any way, shape, or form excusing or defending McQueary's inaction. Instead, I am proposing that the concept of Sandusky "fooling around" with young boys may have been easier for people to dismiss or downplay (in the context of gay stereotypes and assumptions, and therefore outside the context of sexual assault) than the concept of him "fooling around" with young girls. Putting these two observations together, I can't help but think that there is a gendered element to this story that is not being discussed. I may be way off base, but I don't think so.

Either way, I have tried to find at least something positive in this sordid, appalling situation by discussing it in my classes and using it to teach students about the great complexity in how we perceive and report "crime" -- particularly acts of this nature.

An Open Letter to Penn State "Protesters"

2011-11-10T20:59:00.009-05:00

Dear Penn State Students,

On Wednesday night, November 9th, many of you protested/rioted because your football coach was fired before he could end his career “with dignity” after his last home game. You probably think this signals to the world how much you love your school and support your athletic program. Or, maybe you aren’t caring much about what others think.

Either way, let me give you an outsider’s perspective on how your actions are being interpreted by others.

Your social protest makes it appear that you care more about your football program that the young children who were raped at the hands of a sexual predator. While you may not think that Coach Paterno is guilty of anything (having done his legal due diligence), there are several facts you may want to consider before lodging another protest:

According to the Grand Jury testimony, a graduate assistant--current assistant coach Mike McQueary--walked into the Penn State locker room in 2003 to find Jerry Sandusky anally raping a 10-year-old boy. Do you understand what that means? He was sodomizing a fifth grader.

Think back to what you were doing when you were 10. In fact, if you are currently a freshman in college, you were 10 years old in 2003. You were probably in 5^th grade, enjoying being one of the older kids in elementary school, looking forward to recess with your friends, hoping that maybe your mom would let you watch SpongeBob after school. Now imagine being that kid, and being raped by a middle-aged man. Are you having second thoughts about your actions yet?

Now, after McQueary saw Sandusky anally raping a young boy (I want to say it again, so you don’t forget), he walked out. The next day (yes, he waited until THE NEXT DAY), McQueary told Coach Paterno a watered-down version about Sandusky “fondling” a young boy, and Paterno passed the story along to the Athletic Director, Tim Curley.

Two weeks later, Sandusky had to turn in his keys to the locker room.

Let me say that again…

TWO WEEKS after he raped a 10-year-old boy, Sandusky was punished by having to turn in his keys to the locker room.

No arrest. No jail time. Continued access to young victims.

Your “protest” tells the world that you condone sexual violence against children. Failing to act when a child is victimized is almost as bad as committing the act in the first place. Almost.

You believe that Coach Paterno should be allowed to coach one last game “out of respect”, even though he had knowledge that an assistant coach was sexually assaulting young boys and never even told the police. Your coach might have met his legal obligations, but he failed the more important moral obligation of being a decent human being.

Coach Paterno and Mike McQueary should be hanging their heads in shame. They should be crying themselves to sleep, and thanking the good Lord above that Sandusky never preyed on their children (or grandchildren).

Perhaps someday, Penn State rioters, you will be older and wiser. Not likely, but maybe. Perhaps someday you will have children of your own, and know what many of us are feeling right now—the anger and frustration that an innocent child was harmed beyond belief and potentially scarred for life (physically and mentally) due to the actions of a selfish, amoral rapist.

The horrible truth is that Coach Paterno allowed this to occur on his watch. He knowingly allowed a sexual predator to remain on his coaching staff and have contact with children. And (say it with me), he never called the police.

Your protest over the “disgrace” of Joe Paterno signifies that your moral compass is just as broken as his is. I suggest you start protesting the true miscarriage of justice—the rape of young children, rather than the end of a football legacy.

Very sincerely,

Christina DeJong

Associate Professor

School of Criminal Justice

Michigan State University

P.S. Just so you have no doubt about what to do if you see a child being sexually assaulted:

1. Try to stop it if you can.

2. If you can’t stop it yourself, yell and scream to get the attention of others.

3. Call the police. Immediately.

UPDATE: Here's another piece on this issue focused on the survivor viewpoint.

New Loan Program Encourages Irresponsibility

2011-10-27T09:01:00.000-04:00

President Barack Obama recently (October 26, 2011) announced a new federal initiative to make college more affordable. Under the President’s proposed plan, student loan payments would be capped at 10 percent of discretionary income and students would be responsible for payments for a maximum of 20 years. Any remaining debt after 20 years would be “forgiven” by the loan holder. Under his plan, that is us, the American taxpayer. The White House has argued that such a program will make college more affordable and provide those with loans some financial relief all the while resulting in additional costs to the American taxpayer. This is one of those, as it seems, no brainers that all should be able to rally behind.

Who, however, are the real “winners” with such a national policy? There is little doubt that reducing monthly payments for student loans and limited the liability period to 20 years will result in a net savings for many. The value of rewarding those who take on more debate than they can afford may be open for debate, but this relief is really merely a secondary “benefit.” The real winners are private universities and colleges, their presidents, and their boards of trustees. There have been rumblings for years in private universities that the costs are simply getting too high. That the consequences of student loan payments will simply make private universities far too inaccessible for far too many, a fear that may cause a day of reckoning within those institutions to make tough choices about what is really important. President Obama’s recent announcement provides a tremendous relief for all of this institutional soul searching. The President, for example, has promised that the federal government will, in essence, underwrite the costs of private universities. I am sure there are university presidents all over the country now taking huge sighs of relief.

If I am a high school senior who now has a choice to go to a private institution, student loan will now drop down on my list concerns. In the end, who really cares if one assumes $25,000, $50,000, $100,000, or even $200,000 in loans? One’s financial liabilities are fixed under this plan. Arguably such a plan penalizes those who opt for a more “affordable” institution as those who take on more student loans clearly benefit more from this program. Two graduates, one with $25,000 and the other with $100,000 in loans who graduate making similar salaries will essentially be on the hook for similar maximum monthly payments.

Had the President really wanted to make meaningful change to the student loan system, a few more modest changes might be advisable. First, expand the use of subsidized student loans that do not accrue interest while a student is in school. As someone who spent more than a few years combined in both my undergraduate and graduate programs, I was shocked and dismayed to see the impact of interest to my total student loans when they were consolidated. Second, cap interest rates in a way that both generates income for the American taxpayer for their generous support but also communicates to students and their families that education is important to the American people. Finally, consider creating a “federal max” for student loans that will force students and their families to make tough decisions about the value of education.

It is dangerous to communicate to younger adults that they should not be concerned about what financial obligations they commit to; that the government will simply “bail you out” if you borrow irresponsibly. Bail outs breed irresponsibility, at the corporate or individual level. This program will do nothing to reduce the costs of higher education. That is something the marketplace needs to figure out. Someone should explain to the President that there is a real “cost” to forgiving student loans, a cost that gets paid by taxpayers. Good or bad, this cost is real and must be acknowledged. As one of the chumps who is 10 years into a 30 year student loan repayment schedule, back to work to pay off those loans. Like many Americans, however, I am thankful someone took a chance on my education.

A Question for Kay Bailey Hutchison

2011-10-22T13:50:00.003-04:00

A bipartisan congressional review of the criminal justice system is unconstitutional, but feeding Texas inmates only twice a day on weekends to cut costs is not?

Senate GOP Commits Felonious Partisanship

2011-10-21T22:13:00.010-04:00

Senate Republicans yesterday blocked a proposal that would authorize a comprehensive, bipartisan evaluation of the U.S. criminal justice system. The proposal was sponsored by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- one of few members of Congress to demonstrate an informed understanding of the criminal justice system. From Politico:

Invoking “states rights” and the Constitution, Senate Republicans Thursday torpedoed an ambitious plan to create a national blue ribbon bipartisan commission to do a top-to-bottom review of the U.S. criminal justice system and report back potential reforms in 18 months.
The 57-43 roll call – three short of the 60 supermajority needed – dramatized again how politically divided the chamber has become.

Over two years ago, we discussed on this very blog whether a congressional panel could actually accomplish meaningful policy change, or whether it would be little more than political theatre. At that time I conceded that while a National Criminal Justice Commission might turn out to be toothless, "the major benefit of Webb's bill is that it takes the politically risky step of publicly criticizing criminal justice and correctional policy... Recognition that our system is terribly broken ought to transcend political/ideological affiliation." Indeed, one of the experts who spoke at the 2008 ASC panel on politics and crime, Dr. Charles Wellford, also emphasized the need for a new National Crime Commission.

Therefore, the Republican sabotage of Webb's bill on purely partisan grounds is, in my view, far worse an outcome than the creation of a panel that results in little substantive change. Why? Because of the message it sends. Yesterday the Senate GOP told the American public in no uncertain terms that a systematic review of the U.S. criminal justice system is not important. The cynicism of this position is surpassed only by its shortsightedness. (And I can think of 2.3 million people who might disagree.)

There are three points I'd like to make in response to this news.

First, according to Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), a congressional review of the criminal justice system is "not a priority in these tight budget times." An elected official could scarcely utter a more foolish statement. It is precisely because of the tight budget times that a critical evaluation of the justice system is imperative. Every day we waste our money on ineffectual crime policy. We spend and spend and spend -- just as we have faithfully done for the last three decades -- even as the incarcerated population swells and the crime problem continues apace. So rather than upholding their fiduciary duty to the American public and critically evaluating whether we are spending wisely on crime policy, Senate Republicans ducked under the cover of states' rights and abdicated their financial responsibility. If they were financial advisers this stunt would get them fired. As politicians, it will no doubt get them reelected.

Second, we must interrogate the perpetual casting of criminal justice reform as a politically untenable position. We have discussed here many times how politically risky it is for elected officials to question crime policy, lest they be labeled "soft on crime." While this principle applies to all politicians, it is particularly true for conservatives who historically have supported "get tough" crime strategies. Yet calls for evidence-based policy reform aimed at reducing crime and alleviating mass incarceration are hardly limited to the far-left electorate. Todd Clear has said it. Jeremy Travis has said it. John Laub has said it. So why is the reform position so consistently politicized and resisted? Is the fear of appearing "soft on crime" really so threatening that politicians are content to sacrifice being Smart on Crime? Apparently so.

Third, the constitutional objections to Webb's proposal are perilously disingenuous. Senator Hutchison called the plan "an overreach of gigantic proportions." Unlike, say, the Deficit Reduction Panel? Meanwhile, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) asserted that in supporting the proposal, Congress would be "absolutely ignoring the U.S. Constitution...We have no role [to act] unless we're violating human rights or the U.S. Constitution...." I've got some unsettling news for the Senator: The United States leads the planet in incarceration, with more than one in one hundred adults currently behind bars. Sixty percent of the 2.3 million Americans serving time are Black or Latino. Many of our toughest crime policies -- including welfare, housing, and other restrictions for ex-felons, juvenile transfer to adult court, and harsh mandatory minimum sentences -- have a drastically disproportionate impact on impoverished people of color and their children. Among ex-felons, Black men are disenfranchised at a rate seven times higher than the national average. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 17 White offenders have been executed for killing a Black victim, while 255 Black offenders have been executed for killing a White victim. The list goes on and on. If the persistent, pernicious race and class biases of the U.S. justice system do not constitute a human rights violation, I genuinely do not know what does.

Some will undoubtedly dismiss this condemnation of Senate Republicans as reflexive partisanship on my part, but the truth is that they deserve to be raked across the coals. To stand before the American people and claim that opposing a systematic, bipartisan evaluation of the spending behemoth that is the U.S. criminal justice system is the fiscally responsible (not to mention constitutionally-ordained) position is simply indefensible. If you're going to make such a painfully inept decision at taxpayers' expense, at least give us a decent excuse.

Photo credit.

Topeka Makes Domestic Violence Legal

2011-10-12T10:26:00.007-04:00

So, this happened:

Facing Cuts, a City Repeals Its Domestic Violence Law (NY Times)

I came across this on Facebook last night, and my first reaction was to think, "Oh, The Onion, what will you crazy kids come up with next?"

But... no. This is real life. In the City of Topeka, Kansas, it is no longer a crime to commit domestic violence. Now, some may think this isn't a big deal--after all, the City certainly still has laws against assault on the books, right? Police can still arrest someone for beating an intimate partner under those laws, yes?

Unfortunately, the answer seems to be "yes and no". While general assault laws can be used to punish intimate partner violence, laws focused on domestic violence provide far better protection for victims. And then, there's this little gem from the article:

Eighteen people have been arrested on domestic violence charges since September and released without charges because no agency is accepting new cases.

I'm not sure what disgusts me more--the removal of this law from the books, or the finger-pointing over who is to blame for for this happening. It's like a Mexican Standoff of idiots making gun shapes with their fingers.

Dear City of Topeka: YOU'RE ALL TO BLAME. Quit playing politics and get back to work to rectify this.

Percentage Change in Logistic Regression Coefficients

2011-08-31T11:56:00.017-04:00

Here's a rather dry topic for all you stats geeks out there.

This is something that has bothered me for years, yet I cannot find a citation to back me up. Hopefully, there is someone more versed in logistic regression than I who can comment.

I frequently read articles that interpret coefficients from logistic regression as percentage change. The formula typically used is:

Where:

%∆ indicates percentage change, and

e^b is the odds ratio (exp(b))

(Taken from Pampel (2000), Logistic Regression: A Primer. Sage)

So, if your findings looked like this (from Pampel, p. 35):

Table 2.1
Partial SPSS Logistic Regression Results: Variable Coefficients
Variable	B	S.E.	Wald	Df	Sig	R	Exp(B)
Education	-.2085	.0382	29.8742	1	.0000	-.2153	.8118
Age	-.0341	.0067	26.1222	1	.0000	-.2003	.9665
Marital Status	-.3746	.2112	3.1443	1	.0762	-.0436	.6876
Sex (f=1)	.0964	.2126	.2056	1	.6502	.0000	1.1012
Constant	3.3666	.6478	27.0112	1	.0000

DV: Self-reported smoking (0:no, 1:yes)

You could use the percentage change formula to conclude:

· Each additional year of education decreases the odds of smoking by 18.82%

(.8118-1)*100 = 18.82%

· Each additional year of age decreases the odds of smoking by 3.35%

· Being married decreases the odds of smoking by 32% (but not statistically significant)

· Being female increases the odds of smoking by 10% (but not statistically significant)

And this is fairly common in the literature. But here’s my question:

Odds are constrained between 0 and + infinity. So, the maximum decrease in odds can only be 100%, but the increase in odds could be infinitely large. It doesn’t make any sense to me to be able to compare these two values.

In addition, the researcher’s decision about coding greatly affects the percentage change. For example, assume a variable indicating gender is measured as M=1, F=0 and the resulting coefficient (B) is -.8 with an exp(B) of .449. We would conclude:

Being male decreases the odds of the DV occurring by 55.1%.

If we switch the coding to F=1, M=0, the resulting B becomes .8 with an exp(B) of 2.25. We would conclude:

Being female increases the odds of the DV occurring by 125%.

Either I’m missing a fundamental assumption of the distribution of odds, or this doesn’t make a lot of sense. I’ve been spending years telling my students not to do this (rather, they can just talk about the exp(b) and leave out discussion of % change), but it would be nice to have some literature to back me up. Or, have someone tell me I’m completely wrong. Any ideas?

Patch is at the White House...

2011-03-10T11:07:00.003-05:00

...speaking at the White House Conference on Bullying Prevention.

Watch the live stream and weep with pride like me!!

Culture of Poverty

2011-02-14T16:28:00.000-05:00

I wonder if any of you saw the recent article in the New York Times that reintroduces the "culture of poverty" hypothesis generally attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the 1970s. Many are quite aware of the trepidation that many have about using such a characterization. The article states:

'“Culture is back on the poverty research agenda,” the introduction declares, acknowledging that it should never have been removed. '

I wonder the thoughts of my fellow (non)bloggers about this topic. I believe it to be quite controversial. Interesting enough, I quite literally just had an editor on a book chapter ask me to remove the phrase "disadvantage" from a manuscript for similar reasons.

Things That Make My Heart Hurt

2011-02-03T10:55:00.005-05:00

Thing That Makes My Heart Hurt, #1:

Jordan Brown, the 11-year old boy accused of fatally shooting his father's pregnant fiancee back in 2009, is being tried as an adult and faces the possibility of life without parole:

Prosecutors allege that Jordan Brown, now 13, shot and killed 26-year-old Kenzie Houk as she slept in her home in Lawrence County, near Pittsburgh, in February, 2009. Houk was pregnant with a nearly full-term child at the time. Brown was charged with two counts of homicide.

Pennsylvania's laws on juvenile trials are among the least accommodating in the country, with juvenile suspects in homicide cases automatically tried as adults, unless a judge decides otherwise (see note below)...
...[H]uman rights group Amnesty International said that Brown is the youngest person the international organization knows of anywhere in the world facing a life sentence without possibility of parole (emphasis added).

I find this so upsetting that it is difficult for me to articulate any coherent thoughts other than, "I'm moving to Canada."

Houk's murder is a tragic, tragic thing. Yet we stand poised to compound this tragedy by imprisoning an obviously troubled boy until the day he dies. It is unfathomable to me.

Note: if you are interested in reading the judge's decision to not remand Brown's case to juvenile court, you can do so here.

Things That Make My Heart Hurt, #2

Last week, the House GOP introduced legislation, the "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Bill," that drastically narrowed the type of rape and incest for which impregnated victims can receive federal assistance for abortion services to include only forcible acts -- until the enormous backlash prompted the bill's sponsor, New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, to walk back the "forcible rape" exemption:

Last week, Mother Jones' Nick Baumann broke the story on Chris Smith's "No Taxpayer for Abortion" Act, which would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape. For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. But Smith's bill contained a provision that woudl [sic] limit the rape exemption to "forcible rape," ruling out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases—such as statutory rape—in which force was not involved or could not be proved. "It is absolutely outrageous," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). "I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women."

Now, Smith has retreated, excising the "forcible" rape language from the bill, reports Politico. "The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip says, referring to the ban on the federal government paying for abortions that's been in place since 1976.

The GOP effort to rewrite the meaning of rape incited a Twitter campaign of protest (using the hashtag #dearjohn). Editorial pages and columnists protested. Progressive groups initiated a crusade to kill the bill. MoveOn.org launched a petition against the bill, saying Smith's legislation would "set women's rights back by decades…As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape—a lack of consent does." EMILY's List, issued its own petition, declaring war on the bill and one of its most prominent proponents: Speaker of the House John Boehner. Its website, BoehnersAmerica.org, urged "Boehner and his cronies to stop using rape victims as political pawns." The group said, "it was known from the beginning that Boehner and his boys would fight to take away women's freedoms whenever possible."

Smith's bill did unsettle some GOPers. Differentiating between types of rape, Politico reports, befuddled Republican aides. "Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual," one GOP aide says.

The fact that Smith relented offers me little solace. Feminist scholars and activists have been working for thirty years to abolish the idea of "real rape" (you know, stranger assault by an armed, Black man against a defenseless white woman). The fact that the "forcible rape" exemption was even included in the House bill in the first place suggests that we still have work to do.

Please, someone offer me some good news to lift my spirits today!

Dating Violence - Double Standard?

2011-01-31T09:37:00.000-05:00

This post first requires a bit of a confession. Ok, here it goes....I found myself watching "Jersey Shore" the other night. Listen, I am developing a bad case of insomnia and there is not much on TV late at night. Also, being from Delaware County Pennsylvania - it reminds me of my 'hood. So, yes, I admit it - I have watched it twice now.

So, the other night I see what I now know to be "Season 3 - Episode 5" (God help me...why do I know this?). In the episode, which you can see a story about here, "Sam" punches "Ronnie" right in the face. Man, she should be a boxer - nice form, no hesitation, solid shot. This is after she spent the better part of 5 minutes clearly trying to provoke him into a confrontation. The guy (who is the size of a small gorilla) clearly did not want to engage, ignored her, etc only to get cold cocked by him. Frankly, I was shocked. I was shocked this happened, MTV aired it, she was allowed to continue to live in the house, and she has never been arrested although it aired on public television. I must admit, I have done very little systematic research into the area of DV, but I think this sort of thing happens more time than not. I continue to believe, as I believe I have argued on previous posts over the years, that there is substantially more girl-on-guy violence and/or "mutual violence" in dating relationships than popular culture would believe. We all know how this would have (and SHOULD have) gone down if this guy punched her. This would have been used as a "teachable moment" whereby he would have been arrested, MTV would have launched a few "town hall" meetings about dating violence, etc. But for this whole situation to be handled in such a cavalier way (she spent the next 5 minutes tell her mom on the phone how she punched him in the face) is astounding. I am curious about others reactions to this situation? I'm going to go see my girls on "feministing.com" to see if they have any thoughts...why do I doubt it?

Detroit Northwest Precinct Shooting

2011-01-30T14:26:00.006-05:00

On January 23rd, a man named Lamar Moore walked into the Detroit Police Department Northwest precinct and opened fire on the officers -- including the precinct commander -- seated at the desk just inside the building's front door. Four officers were injured, though thankfully none seriously so and all are expected to recover. The gunman, Moore, was killed in the shootout.

Several days after the shooting incident, DPD released security video footage of the attack, which the Detroit Free Press subsequently posted. (A probably unnecessary warning: the graphic video captures the shooting death of the gunman, so view with caution.) The video also contains a recorded introduction in which DPD Chief Ralph Godbee defends the department's decision to release the footage. (For example, among other motivations was a desire to remind the public that police officers are in mortal danger even while not on patrol.)

I'm uncertain how I feel about the video release, to be honest. I'm curious to hear what others think.

P.S.: Here is a summary of Godbee's rationale for releasing the video:

In a message that opens the video, Police Chief Ralph Godbee said the department wanted to release the surveillance video to maintain a commitment to transparency, show the public heroism by the officers along with the inherent dangers that come with police work, and for the benefit of the greater body of law enforcement.

Tucson

2011-01-10T20:33:00.003-05:00

Hey colleagues and readers. Its been a bit since I last interjected myself on the esteemed blog. This won't be a long one, and I'll make an effort to come back and give a more academic and legally insightful analysis of the...and at this point I don't know what to even call it, out of disgust at trying to sum it up with catchy phrase...shootings, and the likely arc(s) of the case(s).

We in these related fields that delve in the very darkest parts of human behavior, are fascinated by it, often joke about it in a way that others people would find inhumane, but don't often have any real connection to the stories that we see. And I know alot of people after tragedies try to inject some part of themselves into it for some reason, which I often found annoying (If I would have done this or that, I would have been there). But I'm finding that maybe its a way that people process personal links, of whatever proximity, to extreme horror.

As my colleagues know, I lived in Tucson. Went to law school there. As they didn't know, I know that Safeway. And I've seen Gabby Giffords. In person. She was MY Congresswoman that I voted for during my time there. I was at the Pima County Democratic Party celebration in 2006 when she was first elected and watched her speak. My law school was walking distance to the hospital where the victims are being treated.

I only write this, not to try to interject myself into this awfulness, but out of some need to process it. Being schooled and involved both in criminology and criminal defense law, having more intellectual insight than most laypeople on why this guy did what he did and what will happen to him for the next decade of his life, oddly, doesn't keep it from hitting close to home that I have seen one of his victims in person and know personally the place where people were slain just going about their lives. I guess insight doesn't make some things easier to watch.

Odds & Ends

2010-12-08T09:48:00.002-05:00

Hello friends!

After exam week is done, I will post my write-up from ASC -- including detailed notes from the panel featuring John Laub, Laurie Robinson, and others.

For now, though, I wanted to share two quick items:

First, a student sent me this link to a video, produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center, designed to inform law enforcement agencies about the dangers of the so-called "Sovereign Citizens" movement:

Crimes committed by adherents of the so-called “sovereign citizens” movement — men and women who believe they are exempt from most laws, regulations and tax codes — continue to spread like a prairie fire.

In places as disparate as Georgia, Indiana, Nevada and Virginia, law enforcement officers are coming up against sovereigns allegedly scheming to steal houses, pry loose money from the government that isn’t theirs, and harass their enemies with crippling property liens and other forms of “paper terrorism.”

(A SPLC report on the sovereign citizens movement is here.)

I'm wondering how much our policing scholars know about this movement, and/or about the extent to which local law enforcement agencies are receiving training on this group.

Second, one of my favorite bloggers, Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic, posted this brief but striking analysis yesterday of the U.S. prison population:

There are roughly 2.3 million people in jails and prisons in America, more than any country in the world.

The United States has 756 people in jail per 100,000 people. No other country has more than 700, and only two are over 600 Russia (629) and Rwanda (604).

Of the 2.3 million people in American jails, 806,000 are black males. African-Americans--males and females--make up .6 percent of the entire world's population, but African-American males--alone--make up 8 percent of the entire world's prison population. I know there are people who think some kind of demon culture could create a world where a group that makes up roughly one in 200 citizens of the world, comprises one in 12 of its prisoners. But I kind of doubt it.

One final thought: If you released every black male in prison, our prison population would stand at 1.5 million, leaving us, still, with the second largest prison population in the world. Only China--a country with four times as many people--would have more (and barely--1.57 million). Russia would be a distant third with 890,000.

FYI for those who are interested in incarceration issues.

Happy grading/exam-giving to those of you wrapping up your semesters!

Cultural Criminology and Edgework?

2010-10-16T14:17:00.007-04:00

First, some prefatory comments:

Like an unfit mother, I have neglected this poor blog sooo much over the last twelve months! Ugh. Well, such is life in Year One of a tenure-track position. Particularly this past spring when I was teaching three classes for the first time in my life (while raising as many children!), I scarcely had time to sleep, let alone blog. I missed it terribly, though, so now that I (hopefully) have my sea legs in Year Two I plan to return to regular blogging. I've missed blogging so much!

OK, now onto the substance of my post:

I am prepping a lecture for my theory class on "feminist and radical criminologies". I can't say that I was thrilled with the book's discussion of feminist criminology (I'm using the 5th edition of Bierne & Messerschimdt's text), but I was truly puzzled by their lengthy coverage of cultural criminology. Let's put it this way: it doesn't do much for the ol' Imposter Syndrome to have never, ever heard the term "edgework" before reading it in my undergraduate theory textbook today (e.g., see here and here).

Based solely on the text's summary of cultural criminology, I have to say I'm unimpressed with the perspective. (And it appears I'm not the only one.) Take this passage, for example:

In this [cultural criminological] view mainstream criminology is irrelevant, boring, lifeless, and navel-gazing...[Proponents] complain generally about the enforced need for young academics, driven by considerations of tenure and job security, to write numerous grant applications to undertake more and more quantitative research on matters of less and less significance... (p. 217).

I can't see this as anything but a big, giant (not to mention inaccurate) generalization. It's one thing to critically evaluate the tenure system, as many have done (see a recent discussion on The Daily Dish, or this recent Chronicle commentary). It is quite another to suggest that all criminologists or sociologists are (a) hampered by pursuing grant-funded research; (b) slavish devotees of quantitative analysis; and/or (c) constricted to irrelevant research interests by unbearable tenure pressures. Really, though, this is just my gut reaction as I do not know enough about the paradigm to make an informed evaluation of it. (Not that that stopped me from writing this post!)

So tell me, GBOCers: Do you see merit in the key propositions of cultural criminology? Are you familiar with "edgework," making me the lone rube of the bunch? I'm curious to hear others' thoughts, particularly in advance of my lecture on this topic next week...

Reagan's Prison Policy

2010-10-15T21:47:00.005-04:00

Here is an audio interview, with transcript, of SFGate/KALW criminal justice editor Rina Palta discussing Ronald Reagan's strategies to reduce prison overcrowding in California during his governorship. The ensuing conversation about politics and crime policy is fascinating. (Palta also discusses Rosemary Gartner's research on women prisons, too.)

Choice passage:

KERNAN: When I think about Ronald Reagan, I think of him as conservative and tough-on-crime - that sort of a politician.

PALTA: Yes, he was. In his first inauguration speech as governor, he actually referred to crime as stemming from moral depravity, which was the kind of rhetoric he would later use as president as well. And crime rates were actually on the rise when Reagan was elected as governor. So it's kind of remarkable that this happened. And I think one thing that helps this make sense is that Reagan was such an economically conservative guy. He just didn't want the government to be spending so much money on imprisoning people, and at the time he took office, it was the highest level of prison population that California had ever had before, and he didn't want that to be the case anymore. And so he ended up listening to his advisors, listening to the professionals in the prison department and getting 10,000 people cut from the prison population.

KERNAN: That seems like it would be a really tough political sell today. And yet, it doesn't seem to be something that hurt Reagan's reputation at all.

PALTA: That's true. Gartner talks about this a lot in her research. Reagan actually bragged about releasing people from prison and shrinking the prison budget, which is hard to imagine nowadays. And this was just a different time politically. There wasn't a lot of attention on crime policy. You didn't have state ballot initiatives devoted to prison and crime issues. You didn't have a public that thought it was equipped and capable of making criminal justice policy. You didn't have a strong prison guards' union that lobbied the Legislature and the governor. And at the time, the governor just had more control over the prison system overall. [Emphasis added.]

This reminds me of President Carter's remarks during his 2007 ASC keynote, when he described how several southern governors competed to see who could reduce his state's prison population the most. Oh, how times have changed.

Patch & Pap Take Over The World!

2010-10-04T13:22:00.004-04:00

Breaking my long blogging silence to share Pap & Patch's veritable media takeover! All of us here at the GBOC couldn't be prouder of them!

Thursday, September, 30, 2010
Patch speaks to NPR's Melissa Block on All Things Considered.

Monday, October 4, 2010
Pap & Patch will appear tonight on AC 360 at 10 pm EST! Read more here.

Correction: Patch will appear on Friday, not tonight. Sorry for the confusion!

Woo hoo!

Patriot Act Renewed

2010-09-16T11:35:00.003-04:00

I must have been the only person to miss this...did anyone else hear that the Patriot Act, apparently, was renewed completely unchanged in March? This, according to the Christian Science Monitor, did in fact occur. I was looking up something for a class and saw this. It seems this is pretty incredible when one considers the HOOPLA! the left made when this was passed. Could it be possible that George and Dick weren't as crazy and evil as the left thought?

Most Long Overdue Crime News Ever?

2010-07-30T09:32:00.004-04:00

CONGRESS PASSES BILL TO REDUCE DISPARITY IN CRACK, POWDER COCAINE SENTENCING DISPARITY

From WaPo:

Congress on Wednesday changed a 25-year-old law that has subjected tens of thousands of African Americans to long prison terms for crack cocaine convictions while giving far more lenient treatment to those, mainly whites, caught with the powder form of the drug.

The House, by voice vote, approved a bill reducing the disparities between mandatory crack and powder cocaine sentences, sending the measure to President Obama for his signature. During his presidential campaign, Obama said that the wide gap in sentencing "cannot be justified and should be eliminated." The Senate passed the bill in March.
The measure changes a 1986 law, enacted at a time when crack cocaine use was rampant and considered a particularly violent drug. Under the law, a person convicted of crack cocaine possession got the same mandatory prison term as someone with 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. The new legislation reduces that ratio to about 18 to 1.

The bill also eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum for first-time possession of crack, the first time since the Nixon administration that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence. It does not apply retroactively.

This is exceedingly welcome news, even if it does mean I have to revise my cocaine unit for my drug policy class this fall!

I know that many folks are displeased that the ratio wasn't equalized at 1:1, but given the highly-charged political nature of the federal cocaine sentences, I think we should be happy that the disparity was cut by a factor of five. It's progress, no doubt.

I'm surprised not to find a lot of commentary on the legislation from around the blogosphere (save for this post from Outside the Beltway, a political science blog). I did find a related article about the War on Drugs and America's new racial caste system at The Crime Report that is worth a read.

I will update with more commentary as it becomes available.

Rape by Deception

2010-07-30T09:24:00.006-04:00

In Israel, a Palestinian man has plead guilty to "rape by deception"--admitting he lied to a woman in order to have sex with her.

What were Sabar Kashour's lies? There were actually two. First, he told her he was single. Second, he claimed he was Jewish, when he is actually an Arab Palestinian.

Mr. Kashour claims she assumed he was Jewish based on his nickname, which is commonly used for men named David (pronounced da-VEED in Hebrew, and a common Jewish first name). He also claims she only went to police after discovering he was really Arab. Of course, one has to wonder if he would be charged with this crime if he was a Jew who had sex with a Palestinian woman.

Historically, rape laws have been more likely to be applied when the accused is in a minority group and the victim is in the majority. For decades after the end of slavery in the United States, black men accused of raping white women suffered harsh penalties, including execution. White men accused of raping black women rarely faced such penalties.

[Here's an interesting legal discussion entitled Rape, Racism, and the Law.]

Putting aside issues of bias against Arabs, Mr. Kashour makes an excellent point:

"I did not say anything or commit anything wrong," he insisted, adding that he did not understand how his misrepresentations could result in a rape charge. "If I told the woman I was a pilot and later she finds out that I was not a pilot, then she goes and says that 'He raped me'? If I told her that I was a millionaire and it turns out that I am a poor man, then she goes and says that 'He raped me'?"

[Mr. Kashour actually DID admit to doing something wrong, as he plead guilty in this case.]

This law is rarely used, so it is not possible to systematically analyze the pattern of enforcement. It is notable that the only other case of this type in Israel involved a man pretending to be a housing official, who coerced women into sex by promising he would provide them with benefits in exchange. Is there a difference between a man preying on poor women in need of benefits and a man pretending to be single? Certainly, these two behaviors differ significantly on the "scale of sleaze", but should the criminal law apply in both cases? Did Mr. Kashour behave unethically? Certainly. Does he deserve to be incarcerated for it? Probably not.

In the United States, the only type of "consensual rape" that can be charged is statutory rape. Given that a minor in this country cannot consent to sex (nor drive a car, vote, drink alcohol, become a party in a contract etc.), this seems logical. Unfortunately, even in the U.S. the issue of consent has been murky. Consider the case of Genarlow Wilson, a 17-yeard-old boy sentenced to 10 years in prison for accepting "consensual" oral sex from a 15-year-old girl. (He ended up serving only 2).

Perhaps Israel should change the name of this law to the "Sexual Regret" law. Have regrets the next morning? Call the police.

[Update: after writing this piece, I found an interesting web site that analyzes stories from several different media outlets. I might have to check this site more often.]

Another Wrongful Conviction: This Time, Close to Home

2010-07-29T11:38:00.003-04:00

Carolyn Kronenberg’s murder was one of Lansing’s most notorious murder cases. A professor at Lansing Community College (LCC), she was preparing to teach a 9am class on January 23, 2005. Sometime between 8:30am and 8:45am, she was assaulted and raped in her classroom. A student in her class found her, clinging to life. She died soon after.

Eventually, LCC student Claude McCollum was convicted of her murder. The primary investigator in Kronenberg’s murder was an LCC detective who had never investigated a homicide. He has been accused of making several errors in judgment, including one extremely troubling ethical violation: he was aware of exculpatory video evidence showing McCollum sleeping (yes, sleeping) in another part of campus at the time of the murder. He is alleged to have hidden this evidence and neither disclosed it to the Ingham County Prosecutor’s Office (allegedly) nor McCollum’s defense attorney. A report from the Michigan State Police arguing that McCollum could not have committed the crime was never introduced at his trial. He was found guilty by jury and sentenced to life without parole.

Throughout the trial, McCollum steadfastly maintained his innocence. He likely wasn’t surprised, when in 2007, Matthew Macon confessed to her murder. Matthew Macon was convicted of killing two Lansing women and was suspected in four other homicides. All of Macon’s victims were middle-aged, white women. All were raped. One survived her attack, and helped to convict Macon of his crimes.

Today, McCollum’s legal team reached a $2 Million settlement with LCC, which will be paid out in installments over several years.

Clearly, wrongful conviction greatly harms the lives of those incarcerated erroneously. McCollum was certainly deserving of a settlement, and most of those released from prison after wrongful convictions never seen any compensation.

The media attention to these cases puts the alleged offender in the spotlight, as it should. However, we often fail to remember the first victims: Carolyn Kronenberg, who suffered horribly at the hands of a serial killer and rapist; and her family, who sat through McCollum’s trial hearing the gruesome details of their mother’s death only to have it all count for nothing. When they heard that the wrong man had been arrested, they were devastated and feared having to face a new trial. Thankfully, Macon’s confession erased such a need.

If you’d like to read more about this case, the Lansing State Journal has a compendium of major stories available online.

Attorney General and the New Black Panther Party

2010-07-02T14:03:00.004-04:00

A former DOJ prosecutor assigned to the Civil Rights Division has gone public with his allegations that Attorney General Eric Holder dropped voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party for politically motivated reasons. J. Christian Adams, part of the team of prosecutors assigned to the case, reports that Holder ordered them to drop the case although the team of prosecutors believed there was ample evidence for prosecution, including several sworn affidavits and videos of the alleged actions. Adams paints a picture of a Justice Department where the Attorney General refuses nearly categorically (never exactly states this, but certainly implies it) to prosecute cases involving defendants of color and white victims. He has recently appeared on Fox News to discuss the case.

Thoughts on this case?

Pap & Patch make the Times. Again.

2010-06-28T20:00:00.004-04:00

Pap & Patch's cyberbullying research appeared in yesterday's New York Times. An excerpt:

Schools these days are confronted with complex questions on whether and how to deal with cyberbullying, an imprecise label for online activities ranging from barrages of teasing texts to sexually harassing group sites. The extent of the phenomenon is hard to quantify. But one 2010 study by the Cyberbullying Research Center, an organization founded by two criminologists who defined bullying as "willful and repeated harm” inflicted through phones and computers, said one in five middle-school students had been affected....

Studies show that online harassment can begin in fourth grade. By high school, students inclined to be cruel in cyberspace are more technologically sophisticated, more capable of hiding their prints. But that is also when older students may be more resilient:
“By high school, youths are developing more self-confidence, engaged in extracurricular activities and focusing on the future,” said Sameer Hinduja, a professor at Florida Atlantic University and an author of “Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard.”
“Their identity and self-worth come from external things that don’t revolve around social relationships.”

This is their second appearance in the NYT. To quote The Trailing Spouse, "It's no Coffee Talk on Wisconsin Public Radio, but it'll do."

Finally!

2010-06-23T20:49:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, almost nine months after President Obama selected him to head NIJ, John Laub was confirmed by the Senate. The Crime Report has more:

Two key Obama appointees in the Justice Department have been confirmed by the Senate: John Laub as director of the National Institute of Justice and James Lynch as director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. They were among more than 60 nominations whose confirmations were delayed by Senate Republicans in a dispute over a presidential recess appointment.
Laub, a professor in the University of Maryland’s Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, will be the first criminologist in four decades to serve as director of NIJ. His research areas include crime and deviance over the life course, juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice, and the history of criminology. Lynch, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, previously chaired the department of Justice, Law, and Society at American University. He has focused on measurement issues in criminal justice data and statistics. His worked with Al Biderman on the nation’s two crime measures—the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report and BJS’ National Crime Victimization Survey [emphasis mine].

This is long overdue -- and very welcome -- news.

Utah Killer Executed by Firing Squad

2010-06-18T08:51:00.003-04:00

Making the rounds this morning is news that a Utah man was executed early this morning by a 5-person firing squad:

Convicted killer Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed early Friday by firing squad, the Utah Department of Corrections said.
Gardner, 49, is only the third person in 33 years to die by firing squad in the United States.

He was killed at 12:20 a.m. MST (2:20 a.m. ET), a Corrections Department spokesman said.

A hood was placed over Gardner's head and a paper target pinned to his chest. He was heavily restrained as a five-person firing squad took aim at the target and shot him, witnesses said...
Gardner, 49, was convicted for the shooting death of attorney Michael Burdell during a botched escape attempt from custody in 1985 at a Salt Lake City, Utah, courthouse.

There is some discussion about the extent to which Gardner moved after he was shot, indicating that his death may not have been immediate (and certainly not painless). There has also been debate about whether firing squads are preferable over other, more common forms of execution like lethal injection.

Happy stuff to be pondering on a sunny Friday morning, I know.

Adventures in Armchair Profiling

2010-06-14T10:29:00.006-04:00

I thought I'd piggyback on ShockProf's post about the still-unsolved Natalie Holloway murder with a story about an unsolved murder in metro Detroit.

First, a brief history: Last year, 5-year old Neveah Buchanan was abducted from her apartment complex in Macomb, Michigan. Her body was later discovered in a shallow, concrete-covered grave along the River Raisin. Though police initially identified three "persons of interest" -- including a man named James Easter -- no suspect has ever been arrested in Neveah's slaying and her murder remains unsolved.

To commemmorate the one-year anniversary of Neveah's murder, the Detroit Free Press is running a three-part series about the case. (You can read part one and part two now; part three will appear tomorrow.)

For this series the Freep has posted a 9-minute video containing excerpts of interviews with James Easter, whom police questioned at length but who was ultimately released without being charged.

This video is generating some interesting comments from readers, many of whom are analyzing it for clues as to Easter's guilt or innocence. Particularly disturbing for many people is a passage of the video (which is transcribed in the first article) in which Easter describes in detail how Neveah's killer might have carried out her burial. A glimpse:

He suggests the killer might have needed more concrete to finish the job and cover Nevaeh's body."Maybe, you have a second bag and you get some water from the river and start mixing some more and put it," he says...

Equally unsettling for some are the...unsavory aspects of Easter's life: he was convicted of indecent exposure some years ago; from his home police confiscated X-rated videos, among other items; he has been methodically pulling out his own teeth; he collects newspaper articles about Neveah's death. If the reader comments are any indication, those facts alone are enough to convict him, but to date the police have not had enough evidence against Easter -- or anyone else, for that matter -- to make an arrest in the case.

Scrolling through the reader reactions to the video of Easter's interview, I was reminded how familiar the general public is (or thinks it is) with criminal profiling and homicide investigation. For example, some readers wondered whether Easter revealed details of the murder not publicly available in the autopsy report, while others questioned whether he removed his teeth to avoid dental record matching. Still others have speculated that by advocating for the hanging death of the perpetrator, Easter is deflecting his own guilt. All of this gleaned from a rambling, 9-minute video on a newspaper website.

Though homicide investigation -- especially of violent, unsolved child murders -- constitutes such a small percentage of police work, it captures the public imagination and invites ordinary citizens to apply what they've learned from the movies and true crime TV to real life. I guess this explains why when I tell people that I'm a criminologist, they often ask, "Do you work for the FBI?" or say, "Oh, like on CSI?" Thank you, Truman Capote.

van der Sloot Confesses to Murder in Peru

2010-06-08T09:42:00.004-04:00

Brief update:

Joran van der Sloot has confessed to the murder of Stephany Flores, a young woman he met in Peru.

I would expect his prison stay to be quite uncomfortable, and there's a good chance he'll pick up tuberculosis. Then again, given his class status he has probably been inoculated. Still, Peru's prisons are overcrowded and the Peruvian inmates are likely to give him a hard time.

Holloway Suspect May Have Killed Another Woman

2010-06-03T12:13:00.003-04:00

A brief news update:

Joran van der Sloot, a Dutch citizen who was implicated in the disappearance of Natalie Holloway, is now a suspect in the death of a Peruvian woman. She was killed on May 30, 2010, exactly five years after Holloway's disappearance.

Police are now searching for Van der sloot, who left Peru quickly after checking out of his hotel.

Different from the Holloway case, police have a body and therefore a significant amount of forensic evidence. It's unlikely that his father (the judge) can bail him out of this one--he died in February.

"That Ship Has Sailed"

2010-05-25T13:42:00.003-04:00

A fitting coda for career crook Kwame Kilpatrick:

Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was fired from his job [at Compuware] today after being sentenced to prison for probation violation....

Earlier today, a frustrated Detroit judge ordered Kilpatrick to serve 18 months to five years in prison, declaring that Kilpatrick had lied while on probation and maliciously hid money that was supposed to go toward repaying the City of Detroit $1 million in restitution....
The judge appeared to give no weight to Kilpatrick’s lengthy and emotional court oration, in which he apologized for his lies in the text-message scandal, but said he is a different and better person today.
As Kilpatrick spoke, the judge mostly looked at papers on his desk.
"Probation is no longer an option," Groner said when Kilpatrick had finished. "That ship has sailed."....

P.S. I forgot to mention that I find this an immensely satisfying turn of events. I do not believe Kwame Kilpatrick has ever uttered a truthful word in his life. He is as slimy as they come (in Blago territory, if you ask me), so I'm pleased as punch that he's headed to the clink.

Insert Your Own Joke Here!

2010-05-24T09:44:00.006-04:00

In the spirit of Patch's annual criminology limerick contest and last year's "caption this photo" contest, I'm offering up an "insert your own joke" contest for this hilarious headline:

"Man accused of smuggling 15 pounds of cocaine in candy"

Not just any candy, mind you, but Ferrero Rocher -- one of Pap's faves!

Here's CNN's anemic attempt:

"Being a drug mule isn't usually such a sweet deal."

Bah! GBOCers can do better, I know it! I'll go first:

That's taking the term "nose candy" a bit literally, don't you think?

Your turn!

High Court strikes down Juvenile LWOP for non-homicide cases!

2010-05-17T11:17:00.005-04:00

This is welcome news for a Monday morning!! SCOTUSblog recaps the Graham v. Florida decision:

In Graham v. Florida (08-7412), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion again by Justice Kennedy. The vote is 6-3, with Justice Thomas dissenting, joined by Justice Scalia and in part by Justice Alito. Justice Alito files a separate dissenting opinion for himself. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, concurs, even though all three join the majority opinion, and the Chief Justice concurs in the result alone.
Holding: It is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole when the crime does not involve murder, given the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Read the opinion here.

UPDATES:

Today's Talk of the Nation featured a discussion with Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project (and Kansas solicitor general Stephen McAllister) about the Graham holding, as well as the Court's decision about civil commitments for sexually dangerous inmates. Read the transcript or listen to the program here.

Also, read more Graham commentary from the Sentencing Law & Policy blog here.

Another Obama SCOTUS Nomination...

2010-05-10T10:30:00.003-04:00

First Sonia Sotomayor, and now Elena Kagan. Thoughts?

Here's what the folks at Sentencing Law & Policy and SCOTUSblog -- the latter of whom are liveblogging the announcement -- have to say about the nomination. Some thoughts from the right here and here. Meanwhile, Ezra Klein's wonders if we know what to ask the new nominee, while Marc Ambinder addressed the pink elephant in the room: the gay "whispers".

Ode to the Tea Baggers

2010-04-29T11:28:00.005-04:00

A while back we had an exchange on this blog about how much institutionalized hatred there is to anything conservative in academics. Some of my more liberally-inclined friends seemed a bit surprised (shocked) that conservatives would report a sense of strong institutional forces against their viewpoints, and therefore, quite unwelcomed in the Academy.

So I am in a lunch meeting yesterday with several faculty/administrators talking about new faculty orientation – this is a University committee. I leave for a second to get lunch (yes, life has not changed….I love to eat) and I return to a conversation about those “tea baggers.” I still am not sure why these conversations surprise me, but the level of presumed comfort that academics have with assuming political views of their colleagues is simply incredible to me. In the conversation about the “tea baggers” (which I found just a tad of irony was from a homosexual colleague…just struck me as somewhat ironic), another started to explain simply how stupid and uninformed those darn people are. After about 2 minutes of this I interjected, and in the end, we had a very thoughtful but spirited debate about the issues surrounding this “movement.” I really enjoyed the conversation but it got me thinking (which is painful for me).

What struck me as so obvious during that conversation is how “Tea Baggers” is now the newest version of the words redneck, hillbilly, cracker, and just about any other pejorative term to denigrate non-minorities (read: those stupid, hateful, inbred white people). It struck me as so obvious about how any hint of disparaging group-level images directed at protected classes is met with SUCH righteous indignation, but is not only tolerated but celebrated when it is directed at other groups. My liberal friends often damage their hands congratulating each other on how creative they can get with the Tea Bagger metaphors. I have gone back to read what is still one of the greatest assigned books I read in grad school, The Redneck Manifesto, by Jim Goad. One of the only good things Kevin Kelly ever taught me!

Institutionalized bias remain alive and well in the Academy. That should help some of you sleep very well tonight!

The new Arizona illegal immigration law...a pre-coffee analysis.

2010-04-28T09:31:00.004-04:00

Guten morgen Arizona. There will be a new criminal statute going into effect in approximately 4 months down in the desert. You may have heard a little something about it on the news.

In essence, the law establishes a new state crime for several things, including being in the country illegally and for blocking traffic to pick up illegal workers for jobs with knowledge that the person is illegal. It also includes a portion that allows government agencies to be fined between $1000 and $5000 per day for not enforcing the new statute (an attempt to short-circuit systemic non-enforcement of the statute by various agencies). Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the law into effect, stated that racial profiling is illegal in Arizona, that the new law will not be used to racially profile individuals, that law enforcement officers will receive additional training on how to implement the law, and also stated..."I don't know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

While I could spend days (and have already) discussing what I think the failed politics and not-so-subtle race issues of the law are, I shall endeavor to point out what I think the biggest problem is with the new law: that it literally cannot be effectively enforced without racial profiling.

The new law mandates (in its most controversial portion) that on any lawful contact by law enforcement where reasonable suspicion exists that a person is an unlawful alien, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine his/her immigration status. Several landmines here.
1. a lawful contact includes the ability of a police officer to approach anyone in public at any time to start a conversation. Although a person is free to go about his/her business unless reasonable suspicion exists to conduct an investigatory stop, a police officer can talk to anyone he/she wants in public. So, a police officer can, at any time approach anyone in public to see if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is illegal.
2. Reasonable suspicion, what is it? Reasonable suspicion is a highly nebulous and one of the most fought over terms in criminal law. If a cop doesn't have it, a person can't usually be stopped even for brief questioning. Reasonable suspicion, legally, is an articulable indication or basis that a crime has, is being, or is about to be committed. It is reviewed by the court under an objective standard. In practice, reasonable suspicious varies GREATLY in what is acceptable to one court as opposed to another. While some factors seem to pop up all the time, there is no set list that the indications have to be on. It is whatever a law enforcement officer and a prosecutor can convince a judge of, as to the combined reasons why the officer's suspicion was raised enough for the officer to stop the person and investigate.
3. "Shall" under the law means required, not optional. In this law, the police must, when practicable on any law enforcement contact, attempt to determine immigration status where they have reasonable suspsicion of a person's illegal status.

The ultimate question then becomes, what objective indicators will be acceptable to courts as indicating that a person is illegal? Lest there be any confusion about intent of the law, Arizona borders Mexico, and illegal immigrants from Mexico are the focus of the law even if unstated. Nobody in the capital was debating illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. So knowing that Mexico was the focus, the Governor has indicated that racial profiling will not be part of enforcement. That should take skin tone out of the equation, theoretically. What other articulable indicators, minus brown skin (which is a misconception about all Mexicans having the same brown skin tone) are left? Spoken language. Spanish. However, this also presents a problem for the courts because plenty of American citizens in Arizona speak Spanish, a large number are Spanish/English bilingual. So, will the courts accept a cop hearing a person speak Spanish as one of the objective indicators that constitute articulable reasonable suspicion? Some will and some will not. Aside from skin tone and spoken language, what other indicators might give suspicion of a person's illegal status? This is where I draw a blank. What is an objective indicator that differentiates an American citizen of Hispanic descent from a Mexican citizen?

Chew on this...I live in Yuma, Arizona and can see Mexico from the corner of my street. Literally. If I want Mexican food for lunch, I actually go to Mexico to get it. What would be an objective indicator that would differentiate someone who lives 5 miles away on the other side of a fence from a person who lives on my block and speaks only Spanish? Perhaps not being able to speak intelligently about who plays first base for the Yankees, a certain difference in clothing, how they smell?

My opinions about the undertones of the law aside, it will prove to be highly unworkable. Aside from Equal Protection and Due Process arguments, it will also be challenged under a Supremacy Clause theory, as in the federal government intended to occupy the entire sphere of immigration enforcement and penalization, thereby disallowing the States to pass their own immigration laws (although the state will argue back that the bill is a criminal statute, not an immigration law).

(Also, in the interest of disclosure, I did once intern in Gov. Brewer's Election Services Office as a law school intern, when she was previously Secretary of State for Arizona, but did not work for her directly. An ironic FYI.)

I expect that I will be seeing my first charge under the new law in late August or early September. Then get ready for the fireworks.

Pap on Fox

2010-04-27T13:17:00.003-04:00

I always knew I would eventually see Pap on Fox News...

Patch on Wisconsin Public Radio!

2010-04-22T22:02:00.015-04:00

Continuing the string of media appearances by GBOCers (see here, here, here, and here), Patch appeared on Wisconsin Public Radio earlier this week to discuss cyberbullying with WPR's Joy Cardin.

You can listen to the full interview here. Naturally, Patch rocked the house.

Being the good friend, colleague, and co-blogger I am, I live-blogged the interview. (Well, it's not really a live-blog because I listened to the recorded interview, but "taped-blog" doesn't have the same ring.) Enjoy! And way to go, Patch!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0:10. Wow. Joy has a serious upper midwest accent. ("Ooooooo Claire, Wis-caaaahn-son.")
1:40. He's an associate professor, Joy, not an assistant professor!
1:57. They could have at least checked your microphone before the interview started. ("Whoops! We got a real hot mic here!")
3:01. Ahh. That's better. Now I can hear you, Patch!
4:42. Joy says of bullying in the days of yore: "There were mean girls doing mean things." Hey, somebody should make a movie about that.
5:50. "Now, everybody's in on the joke." You make a great point about the widening of the bullying audience with new forms of communication technology.
6:03. "He's an associate, or an assistant, professor of criminal justice...." Tenure, schmenure.
7:15. Nice fake-out! She seems to be asking you about whether the teens in the Phoebe Prince case ought to face criminal charges, but when she finishes her sentence it's clear she's asking potential callers! LOL! Never mind what the expert thinks!
9:00. First shout out to Pap!
10:10. The first caller says he's read your book!! Is he a plant? ("A plant? I thought men like you were usually called a fruit.")
12:42. You are relaxed, confident, and clear in responding to the first caller. You rock.
14:25. She's asking listeners to comment on Facebook about cyberbullying. Heh.
14:58. Cyberbullying victims should "keep the evidence". Good advice that applies to all types of harassment and victimization.
16:31. The screener should be fired for allowing the call from the 58-year old who wants everyone to make like the Mennonites and ditch their iPods and cell phones. Objection, relevance! Your "pulling the plug is not the answer" response was spot on, Patch, but I think you should have asked him why if he's so opposed to technology he's calling in to a radio phone-in program! LOL!
18:33. I love your point about the increase in MySpace profiles that are set to private. "Teens are listening," indeed.
19:37. Is there a screener? The third caller is veering in his point, too. Why are we talking about torture? Now I'm certain the first caller was a plant!
21:56. First break. You are doing awesome, seriously.
22:23. And we're back. During the break you went from being a "nationally known" expert to being "internationally known" - impressive!! (Yes, but are you known to rock the microphone?)
24:12. She finally got your title correct. "I thought I got demoted." ROFL! I miss you, Patch!
26:58. You do a great job referencing statistics in an organic, conversational way without sounding like you are reading from a cheat sheet you brought with you. Well done.
27:40. Kids can be "emotionally hurt so bad that it turns into physical hurt." That's a great insight, and a terrific quote.
30:02. No, Joy. We can't blame namecalling by peers on Phoebe Prince's suicide, but we may be able to blame her suicide on namecalling by peers. You were very gracious, Patch -- that was not a great question.
30:55 Just once in my life I want to say on the radio, "I'm a trained criminologist." That's so hot.
35:33. The fourth caller's daughter changed districts because the junior high school wouldn't do anything about her bullying victimization? Really? It seems like there's more to the story than that, if only because the school would be loath to lose out on that revenue. "I don't hear too many examples like Missy's." Ah. Very diplomatic response, Patch.
39:40. A studio audience question! Wait, people actually hauled their cookies to a radio studio at six in the morning to hear you talk about cyberbullying? LOL! That's some serious motivation.
41:43. Final caller, and he makes a great point about controlling who is in your social network by blocking friend requests, using privacy settings, etc.
42:40. Your example about the teen girl "friending" her bully because she felt is was safer than blocking her is both sad and frightening. It makes me anxious for my own girls to become teenagers. (I think Baroness Schraeder was right about boarding school!)
43:40. You did a terrific job, Patch. So proud of you!

RIP, Dixie Carter

2010-04-12T09:22:00.004-04:00

This weekend, Dixie Carter lost her life to endometrial cancer at the age of 70. It just so happens that she portrayed one of my favorite TV characters of all time: feisty, fiercely intelligent Julia Sugarbaker from Designing Women.

The show was ahead of its time, thoughtfully addressing social issues like AIDS when it was decidedly unpopular for a sitcom to do so. In particular, Julia's stinging diatribes against people whose actions she found objectionable often served as the social conscience of the show. Behold one such rant, a delicious dismantling of political pandering that is just as (if not more) relevant today as it was twenty years ago when it originally aired.

Like Julia, I think many of us pray "that people with power will get good sense, and people with good sense will get power." RIP, Dixie Carter.

"Watershed" Bullying Case?

2010-04-05T09:29:00.006-04:00

Waiting for my breakfast sandwich at Starbucks this morning, I noticed the headline in today's USA Today: "A 'Watershed' Case in School Bullying":

Parents might not realize that the stereotypical bully of generations past — a swaggering schoolyard lout, low on self-esteem, quick to lash out, easy to identify — has become as anachronistic as the blackboard at many schools.

Educational psychologists describe a new kind of bullying. The perpetrators are attractive, athletic and academically accomplished — and comfortable enough around adults to know what they can and can't get away with, in school and online.

These bullies are so subtle and cunning it's hard for school staff to know if what looks like bullying really is, and what to do about it. "Some of it is so under the radar that without training, you can't see what's in front of you," says Marlene Snyder, a Clemson University expert on bullying....
Last week, the district attorney here created a sensation when she took a rare step, filing criminal charges against nine South Hadley High School students who allegedly bullied Phoebe Prince until she hanged herself at home Jan. 14.

Felony charges against six of the teens, two boys and four girls, range from statutory rape to stalking and civil-rights violations. Three other girls were charged as juveniles.

I know Scoob has written before about the anti-bullying legislation in Massachusetts. I'm wondering what Scoob, or our resident bullying experts (that'd be Pap & Patch) have to say about this case? Its similarities to the Megan Meier case? Or about the claims of a new "breed" of school bully?

Update: Pap & Patch have been following the Phoebe Prince story on their cyberbullying blog; read more here.

Video games that promote sexual violence against women

2010-04-01T09:12:00.001-04:00

Recent press coverage has been focused on "hentai" video games being produced in Japan and distributed all across the world in an underground manner. Hentai generally refers to sexually explicit or pornographic comics and animation, and video games of this ilk have been available for years overseas. Recently, though, they have been "ripped" from DVD-ROMs and made available in digital format online - for anyone to download regardless of their location and their age.

The major problem with these games is that they seem to promote sexual violence against women, and present it in a way that makes the "player" believe it is a game, or part of a conquest, or a way to flirt, or that girls ask for it by how they dress and behave. In one scene depicted in the CNN story from a game entitled "RapeLay," the player pursues a girl, her sister, and her mom in a subway scene and is able to stalk her, back her into corners, lift her dress, fondle her, and rape her. While genitalia are obscured in the depicted graphics, the scene and action leaves little to the imagination.

Some argue that players "kill" other players in so many video games (Call of Duty, Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto, Halo 3), and that it is commonplace and even banal. Playing such games has not affected the national murder rate (in any country), and so it is illogical to believe that sexually assaulting a girl in a subway might induce someone to do the same in real life. As such, the argument goes, hentai games should be available as their main purpose and outcome is entertainment for the gamer.

I completely disagree. To be sure, Japan has very high availability rate of violent games/movies/manga/hentai but also has a very low incidence of real-world crime and violence. As a criminologist, this is intriguing and so one wonders if the video games allow for escapism to engage in deviant acts, thereby alleviating a felt need to act out in deviant ways in the real world. Research, though, has not proven a link here and I believe it is due to cultural constraints in Japan where shame and dishonor is used to keep youth and adults in line. The availability of these games to teenagers in America (regardless of whether they are available on store shelves or downloadable from BitTorrent or other P2P sites) is what is concerning to me. This is particularly because youth in our country already seem hypersexualized, and where the phenomenon of dating violence and domestic violence occurs with some regularity.

I was chatting with Dr. Hnk, and she mentioned to me that this is what feminist and anti-violence activists mean when they talk about a "rape culture." It doesn't mean that someone playing RapeLay would automatically go out and rape someone, but games like that make light of rape, normalize, it, legitimize it, commodify it, etc., so that it is not seen as WRONG as it should be. "It's just a joke, haha." "It's just a game, haha." You get the picture.

Yes, we blast others to oblivion in first-person shooter games and have become desensitized to doing so in those environments. In fact, we've watched movies for decades which depict mass casualties and think nothing of it. However, games that encourage sexual aggression and violence against women crosses the line. I had friends in middle school who used to play "Leisure Suit Larry" on their Commodore 64 computers, and while Larry was all about sexual conquests, it was presented in a very cartoonish and far-fetched fashion - and nothing resembling "sexual intercourse" (consensual or otherwise) was ever depicted. Hentai games not only depict actual rape occurring, but do so in a way that celebrates it.

This cannot be tolerated. Women's Rights Groups are requesting that the Japanese government intervene because the gaming industry does not seem to be policing themselves and considering how this is affecting today's young males. If the current generation reluctantly accepts these games, the next generation will view them as normal - and will view the actions therein as endorsed and part of the current cultural milieu.

Way to Go, Pap!!!!

2010-03-26T21:42:00.002-04:00

All of us at the GBOC are thrilled for our colleague and friend Pap, who recently was named Florida Atlantic University Teacher of the Year!!

This is a truly remarkable achievement for a young scholar, and comes on the heels of his win last year for FAU's Researcher of the Year. That's right: in the last two years, Pap has won the top two honors at his university!!

We are so proud of you, Pap!!

MAJOR Development in Federal Cocaine Sentencing Policy

2010-03-20T21:40:00.001-04:00

For a couple of years now I have been lecturing in my drug policy class about the 100:1 ratio in federal cocaine sentence laws. Each time I teach the class, we discuss the likelihood (heretofore rather remote, I think) of the ratio being reduced.

But slow changes have been occuring.

First came news in December 2007 that the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to retroactively apply an amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines reducing sentences for crack cocaine offenses.

Then this past Thursday, the Senate passed a bill to reduce the federal cocaine sentencing ratio from 100:1 to 18:1. This is astonishing news:

In unusually quick action, the U.S. Senate passed a bill to change the punishment for possession of crack cocaine just a week after the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it. For 24 years, the law has punished crack users 100 times more heavily than powder cocaine users, the new Senate bill brings the 100-to-1 ratio down to 18-to-1. Julie Stewart of Families Against Mandatory Minimums says it was the the first time since the Nixon administration that the Senate voted to repeal a mandatory minimum sentence.

Here's more analysis from NPR:

After more than a decade of debates, hearings and lobbying, the Senate has passed a bill to change the punishment for possession of crack cocaine.
The bill had strong support from both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. While the current law punishes crack users 100 times more heavily than powder cocaine users, the new Senate bill brings the 100-to-1 ratio down to 18-to-1...
Now the House must decide what to do. A House committee has already approved a bill that treats crack and powder identically. The full House could adopt the Senate's 18-to-1 sentencing ratio or push for the House bill with a 1-to-1 ratio.

It is difficult for me to contain my excitement over this news. I am anxiously awaiting the House's response.

Stay tuned...

P.S. Yesterday I e-mailed the students in my current drug policy class with an update about the Senate bill. This morning I received a response from one student describing "what a rush" it was for her to be learning about these issues in class and then be poised to witness actual legislative change of the type we've been discussing all semester. I have to say, it made my day to know that even one student is paying attention to -- let alone excited about! -- crime policy. What more can a crim prof ask for?!

Friday CJ Funnies: Heroes in a Half-Shell Edition

2010-03-18T23:17:00.006-04:00

In the mood to fight crime, early-90s hip-hop style? Have a mean crazing for pizza? Bear the moniker of a famed Renaissance philosopher or artist?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, I have just the video for you. Happy Friday, everybody. Turtle Power! (Choice lyric below.)

Partnerz in Kryme: "Turtle Power" (1990)

Lyrics:

T-U-R-T-L-E power
T-U-R-T-L-E power
T-U-R-T-L-E power
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle

On a half shell, they're the heroes four,
In this day and age who can ask for more?
The crime wave is high with muggings mysterious,
All police and detectives are furious.
'Cause they can't find the source
Of this lethally evil force...

P.S. See also this, obviously.

March Madness Begins Today!

2010-03-18T08:19:00.006-04:00

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here's what I said in the run-up to the 2008 tourney, with the current info in brackets:

The Spartans are the #5-seed in the South [East] region, squaring off against Temple [NMSU] in the first round: discuss.

Hmmm....

The #5-seed may be a concern to some, as historically the 5/12 matchups are rife with upsets. (Here is a thoughtful analysis of the 5/12 upsets in the last decade or so, though the author -- rightfully so, in my opinion -- advises against taking Temple over MSU this year given that the Spartans tend to show extraordinary tenacity in the tourney.

Ditto that.

The Spartans likely are looking to avenge their loss in the semifinal [first(!)] round of the Big Ten Tournament. Their meltdown against Wisconsin [Minnesota] just might provide them with the focus they need to make a great tournament run.

Jeez. Do we see a pattern here or what?

The snow is melting, the birds are chirping, and the crocuses are peeking up through the earth. The semester is more than halfway over and the students are emerging from their hibernation to enliven campus again. And the purest, most compelling playoff series in all of athletics is about to begin. If this isn't your favorite time of year, I don't know what is!

Well, that's still true, obviously.

You know, I polled my students this week (who complained because I didn't give them the Monday after the Super Bowl off) about which is the most compelling athletic championship event, and they almost unanimously said the Super Bowl. So, I pulled up the "One Shining Moment" clip on You Tube and made 'em watch it. Really. (I even sang along.) "Tell me," I said, "when the Super Bowl's ever made you cry." They may not have changed their minds, but they did concede my point. (Or so I like to think.)

Happy Tourney, everybody!

P.S. Patch: I will get that "important work" to you before noon today!
P.P.S. A few more comments I neglected to add:
(1) Go Golden Grizzlies!! It's pretty cool that in my first year in its employ, OU makes the Big Dance. Fingers are crossed for a MAJOR upset over Pitt!
(2) I'm cheering for the MSU Women's team, too!

Reminder!

2010-03-07T13:05:00.003-05:00

ASC submissions are due THIS FRIDAY, March 12th! This is more a reminder for me than for all of you!

Thoughts on the SanFran meeting? I've never been -- I'm soooo looking forward to it! Are we going to Alcatraz or what?

Dear Patchy

2010-03-05T11:03:00.005-05:00

Does your local paper carry the syndicated "Ask Amy" column? If so, you might have seen a recent column in which our very own Patch offers advice about cyberbullying and Facebook:

Dear Amy: What's a parent to do when their child is being bullied relentlessly by peers on Facebook? As a parent who monitors my kids' Facebook communications, I'm disgusted by the ongoing profanity-filled sniping and attacks by individuals and groups alike.

School administrators say they have no control over what happens outside of school. Maybe not, but Facebook repercussions are felt every day in the hallways, classrooms and lunchrooms at school.

We live in a small town, but no one seems to want to discuss this. In other eras, when something was amiss, one (or more) of the parents who heard or saw infractions would step in and reprimand the offending child. I'm about to do the same and let the offending one(s) know that a parent saw the nastiness, and that it is unacceptable.

Amy, what's a parent to do in this age of cyberbullying?

— Worried Mom

Dear Mom: I read your letter to Justin Patchin, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, who asserts that teen cyberbullying is tricky.

You might assume, for instance, that you can just yank your kids off of Facebook or have them "unfriend" or "block" the bullies, but this doesn't necessarily solve the problem — and may exacerbate it.

Patchin suggests that you not approach the offenders or their parents (yet), but mentor and educate your children about this growing problem.

Collect the evidence. Print out and save the bullies' text.

If the bullying is personal and threatening, if it escalates or spills into the hallways at school, the school does have an obligation to step in, punish the aggressors and engage the other families.

Even though it's tempting, your kids should not respond to bullying online.

Patchin also suggests taking a break from Facebook to let things settle down — and I wholeheartedly agree.

For more information and tips on how to handle this, check the research center's Web site at cyberbullying.us.

Woo hoo! I, for one, am looking forward to a "Dear Patchy" column in my local paper very soon! (Along with its partner column, "Ask Pap Landers.")

Domestic Homicide - Adding Context to the Numbers

2010-03-03T12:00:00.003-05:00

I am just getting a lecture ready for my policing class. Talking about discretion, etc. Case in point is changing attitudes toward the use of discretion as it relates to domestic violence. The book (Gaines and Keppler, decent book) has a chart that looks at changes in intimate partner homicide from 1976-2004. I remember having seen this in the past but I guess never really thought about it. It is remarkable to me that around 1976, the number of male/female deaths related to intimate partner homicides was nearly equal at approx. 1,500. By 2004 the number for men was around 400 but women was around 1,200. To the degree these changes are a result of policy changes, what is going on here? To my feminazi friends - I am sure you all have noticed and thought about this fact. What is up here? I guess I am really surprised that if these changes have been effective, they are more effective at protecting MEN compared to WOMEN. Interesting and perplexing considering we really don't define DV as a male victim problem.

Bernie Kerik Sentenced to Prison

2010-02-19T22:49:00.002-05:00

The former NYPD Commissioner was sentenced to four years in prison for tax fraud and lying to White House officials (while being vetted as a candidate for Director of Homeland Security). Yikes.

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 19

2010-02-18T12:41:00.003-05:00

Girl's arrest for doodling raises concerns about zero tolerance

There was no profanity, no hate. Just the words, "I love my friends Abby and Faith. Lex was here 2/1/10 :)" scrawled on the classroom desk with a green marker.
Alexa Gonzalez, an outgoing 12-year-old who likes to dance and draw, expected a lecture or maybe detention for her doodles earlier this month. Instead, the principal of the Junior High School in Forest Hills, New York, called police, and the seventh-grader was taken across the street to the police precinct.

Alexa's hands were cuffed behind her back, and tears gushed as she was escorted from school in front of teachers and -- the worst audience of all for a preadolescent girl -- her classmates.

"They put the handcuffs on me, and I couldn't believe it," Alexa recalled. "I didn't want them to see me being handcuffed, thinking I'm a bad person." (emphasis mine)

My thoughts, in no particular order:

I hope her parents sue the pants off of the school district.
I hope the principal is asked to resign -- or, better yet, is arrested -- for such flagrant dumbassery.
This is a good case for studying study primary and secondary deviance, as suggested by Lemert. Labeling theorists will be rightly horrified at what was done to this girl. Now she has an official arrest record and has been formally labeled a "bad person," which places her at greater risk for future delinquency. She also missed several days of school, which put her behind in her studies -- another risk factor for delinquency.
Another issue on my mind as I read this story: how girls' entry into the juvenile justice system so often involves minor and/or status offenses.
Reading the other examples in the story of juveniles arrested for ridiculously minor transgressions under zero tolerance policies reminds me just how much I hate zero tolerance policies.
One more time, for good measure: I hope her parents sue the pants off of the school district.

Report: No crime wave among Hurricane Katrina evacuees

2010-02-13T21:27:00.005-05:00

First, I want to congratulate Scooby for having his research highlighted in USA Today. Nice work!

Here is a link to the complete article. As the blog title suggests, Scoob and his colleagues (including Cranky) evaluated crime trends in cities that housed evacuees from Hurricane Katrina (Houston, Phoenix, and San Antonio). They describe the 'disaster myths' common in events like Katrina - the public perception that tragic events like these breed crime. Similarly, this work comports with the racial threat hypothesis and attribution theories- the concern that outsiders, particularly people of color will threaten the status quo and will be less trustworthy and more prone to criminal behavior.

The article is very well written, so I will just share some excerpts. Overall, the authors find few links between the presence of evacuees and an increase in crime.

"But if there was any effect, it was a modest one," Varano says, after his group weighed police crime data from the three cities to look for trends for each crime from 2004 to 2006. The study found a slight rise in murder and robbery in Houston, when adjusted for the long-term crime patterns, but no increase in other crimes (and suggested drops in rape and aggravated assaults); no effect at all in San Antonio; and another slight statistical rise in the murder rate in Phoenix. "Any increase in murder is intolerable," Varano says, but a lack of increase in crimes such as car theft and robbery, where economic motives most clearly would tempt so many displaced people, argues against a crime wave driven by evacuees, he says.

What is most interesting are the comments to the article. Here is one example.

I am 32 years old and have lived in Houston all my life. Take it from me, this article is nothing but 100% BS! Petty crimes such as robbery and thefts have definitely skyrocketed since the influx. The bad economy isn't helping crime rates either. I was a victim of robbery in 2008 and I constantly see it happening again and again more than usual. The higher end suburbs seem to be the taking the worst of the brunt right now. Shootings/robberies at the Sugar Land and Woodlands malls last month. Hell even the mayor of Sugar Land was robbed at his own house! These two suburbs have been fairly safe areas in the past but things have been changing a lot over recent years. You can never escape crime anywhere you go but sometimes I feel things are starting to get so unsafe around here that I'm ready to pack up my crap and get out of dodge!

U Alambama Huntsville Shooting

2010-02-13T08:48:00.003-05:00

I am sure that most of my fellow bloggers, like me, we dismayed to learn this morning that the shooter associated with this terrible situation was a biology professor recently denied tenure. When I heard about the shooting last night, I assumed it was another situation of a crazed student. To learn it was a faculty member was just shocking.

For a brief moment I would just like to comment on this situation. There is certainly not enough blog space to handle all I would like to say, but I will add a few points. Most of my fellow bloggers know that I am someone who was recently denied (spring 2008) tenure at the end of my 6 year probationary period at a place I affectionately refer to as the "Evil Institution," or EI for short. I guess in reading some of the stories about this some of the emotional impact of that horrible situation came pouring back in.

Obviously I know nothing about Bishop's situation - her record, rationale for denial, etc but I do know all too well the emotional and professional impacts of this situation. I have sometimes commented (some think in jest, but in all sincerity) how I thank God that my tenure denial did not drive me to become suicidal, homicidal, or both.

I know most of us are inclined to fully believe in the tenure process. I am in no position to launch a full-scale indictment of Institutional processes, but know the emotional impacts of denial. I will never try to argue I should have been granted tenure...like all convicted felons who never think they are truly guilty of a crime, no professor denied tenure thinks they should have been denied. But in the aftermath, likely the most devastating aspects were how I instantly (literally overnight) went from being a good colleagues, friend, good scholar to an enemy, inferior, unworthy. The whole institution turned on a dime and put me right in their crosshairs. I literally felt like a rat trapped in a corner. The people and processes therein changed from "there is a colleague" to "there is someone we have protect ourselves from," "there is someone who might sue us," "lets cover our collective asses from liability." Processes became secretive, people whispered in corners. The entire appeals process was literally a joke - a ceremonial process clouded in the appearance of a judicious process but in reality, set up to reaffirm the original decision. One member of the appeals board was so brazen to ask, "Is your research agenda even worthwhile? I mean, haven't you all asked and answered these questions already?" This was a wonderful attorney from the EI's law school. In the end, I realized that 2-4 people are denied tenure every year - almost like a standard the Provost sets up to make sure the Dean's know, all of your decisions will not be rubber stamped by me...I am in charge.

In the end, I am thankful that I am a very emotionally stable person with a tremendous support system. I pray for those killed during this tragic event, and in many ways, for Amy Bishop. I also hope the other Evil Institutions and people that create the processes understand the full impact of their decisions. In the end, no one should EVER be denied tenure. If interim evaluations work they way they should, these folks (yes, maybe even me) should be screened out long before it comes to this. The timing is so interesting...over dinner as I was talking with my wife she asked, "do you still think about tenure? Does it still bother you? Are you 'over it?" I said, "You know, I am certain I will never be over it. The best I can hope for is to deal with it as best as possible."

Ok, I feel like I just paid for an hour of therapy.

Checking In

2010-02-09T20:16:00.003-05:00

Hello readers (and fellow bloggers),

Just a quick note to acknowledge the lengthy silence on the blog lately. Such it is with a blog maintained by academics -- we all get busy with other things!

Of course, we will continue to post as we are able. I'm hoping to get a lightning round up soon!

Thanks for your continued support!

~Dr. H

How did I get this far in my career....

2010-01-23T20:39:00.004-05:00

..and not know that Robert Merton's given name was Meyer R. Schkolnick?!

Honestly! I am the only one who didn't know that?!

Friday CJ Funnies: Young at Heart Edition

2010-01-22T09:00:00.001-05:00

Some Thames Valley police officers were reprimanded recently when a YouTube video surfaced showing one of the men using his riot shield to sled down a snowy hill:

Supt Andrew Murray said those involved have been spoken to and advised that their actions were a "bad idea".
But the local policing area commander added that the snow had "a habit of bringing out the child in all of us".
"I have spoken to the officers concerned and reminded them in no uncertain terms that tobogganing on duty, on police equipment and at taxpayers' expense is a very bad idea should they wish to progress under my command," Supt Murray added.

But the citizen who filmed the officers and posted the clip on YouTube disagrees:

"They were jovial and it was nice to see officers taking time out to get involved.
"They were only there for a few minutes so I don't think they should be criticised.
"Since I've put the footage up lots have people have commented saying how good it is to see officers having a sense of humour.
"It makes a change of the image you usually read about."

You can watch the brief video of the officers -- giggling like schoolchildren as their comrade slides down the hill and into a ditch -- here.

Happy Friday, everyone. Here's hoping this weekend brings a visit from your inner child....just so long as you avoid "tobogganing on duty"!

Welcome Baby Patchin!!

2010-01-21T08:17:00.003-05:00

Mark Thomas Patchin was born at 12:08 a.m. this morning...four weeks early!

Congrats to Patch, Jill, and baby Mark!!!

Gitmo "Suicides"

2010-01-20T19:57:00.008-05:00

Late in the evening on June 9 [2006], three prisoners at Guantánamo died suddenly and violently. Salah Ahmed Al-Salami, from Yemen, was thirty-seven. Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi, from Saudi Arabia, was thirty. Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani, also from Saudi Arabia, was twenty-two, and had been imprisoned at Guantánamo since he was captured at the age of seventeen. None of the men had been charged with a crime, though all three had been engaged in hunger strikes to protest the conditions of their imprisonment. They were being held in a cell block, known as Alpha Block, reserved for particularly troublesome or high-value prisoners.

Earlier this week, Harper's published an article by lawyer-turned-journalist Scott Horton that casts serious doubt on the government's assertion that the three Guantánamo detainees who died simultaneously in the summer of 2006 committed suicide. The evidence Horton presents points to a chilling conclusion: the U.S. tortured these three men to death, then staged the suicides in an effort to cover up their murder.

Horton's narrative is based on several sources of information.

First is a report from the Seton Hall Law Center for Policy Research that uncovers glaring gaps and inconsistencies in the government's official account of the deaths. According to the Seton Hall School of Law, whose researchers prepared the report, Death in Camp Delta "found dramatic flaws in the government’s investigation of the deaths and questioned its characterization of the deaths as suicides."

Of this report Horton writes:

The NCIS report [of the deaths] was carefully cross-referenced and deciphered by students and faculty at the law school of Seton Hall University in New Jersey, and their findings, released in November 2009, made clear why the Pentagon had been unwilling to make its conclusions public. The official story of the prisoners’ deaths was full of unacknowledged contradictions, and the centerpiece of the report—a reconstruction of the events—was simply unbelievable.
According to the NCIS, each prisoner had fashioned a noose from torn sheets and T-shirts and tied it to the top of his cell’s eight-foot-high steel-mesh wall. Each prisoner was able somehow to bind his own hands, and, in at least one case, his own feet, then stuff more rags deep down into his own throat. We are then asked to believe that each prisoner, even as he was choking on those rags, climbed up on his washbasin, slipped his head through the noose, tightened it, and leapt from the washbasin to hang until he asphyxiated. The NCIS report also proposes that the three prisoners, who were held in non-adjoining cells, carried out each of these actions almost simultaneously.

All of this activity occurred undetected by a single prison guard:

The fact that at least two of the prisoners also had cloth masks affixed to their faces, presumably to prevent the expulsion of the rags from their mouths, went unremarked by the NCIS, as did the fact that standard operating procedure at Camp Delta required the Navy guards on duty after midnight to “conduct a visual search” of each cell and detainee every ten minutes. The report claimed that the prisoners had hung sheets or blankets to hide their activities and shaped more sheets and pillows to look like bodies sleeping in their beds, but it did not explain where they were able to acquire so much fabric beyond their tightly controlled allotment, or why the Navy guards would allow such an obvious and immediately observable deviation from permitted behavior. Nor did the report explain how the dead men managed to hang undetected for more than two hours or why the Navy guards on duty, having for whatever reason so grievously failed in their duties, were never disciplined.

Another particularly gruesome example of irregularities in the official account of the deaths involves the autopsies of the men's bodies:

Military pathologists connected with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology arranged immediate autopsies of the three dead prisoners, without securing the permission of the men’s families. The identities and findings of the pathologists remain shrouded in extraordinary secrecy, but the timing of the autopsies suggests that medical personnel stationed at Guantánamo may have undertaken the procedure without waiting for the arrival of an experienced medical examiner from the United States. Each of the heavily redacted autopsy reports states unequivocally that “the manner of death is suicide” and, more specifically, that the prisoner died of “hanging.” Each of the reports describes ligatures that were found wrapped around the prisoner’s neck, as well as circumferential dried abrasion furrows imprinted with the very fine weave pattern of the ligature fabric and forming an inverted “V” on the back of the head. This condition, the anonymous pathologists state, is consistent with that of a hanging victim.

The pathologists place the time of death “at least a couple of hours” before the bodies were discovered, which would be sometime before 10:30 p.m. on June 9. Additionally, the autopsy of Al-Salami states that his hyoid bone was broken, a phenomenon usually associated with manual strangulation, not hanging.

The report asserts that the hyoid was broken “during the removal of the neck organs.” An odd admission, given that these are the very body parts—the larynx, the hyoid bone, and the thyroid cartilage—that would have been essential to determining whether death occurred from hanging, from strangulation, or from choking. These parts remained missing when the men’s families finally received their bodies.

Second is eye-witness accounts from four Guantánamo prison guards -- including Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman, the guard on duty the night of the deaths -- that corroborate the findings of the Seton Hall report:

[That the detainees committed suicide] is the official story, adopted by NCIS and Guantánamo command and reiterated by the Justice Department in formal pleadings, by the Defense Department in briefings and press releases, and by the State Department. Now four members of the Military Intelligence unit assigned to guard Camp Delta, including a decorated non-commissioned Army officer who was on duty as sergeant of the guard the night of June 9, have furnished an account dramatically at odds with the NCIS report—a report for which they were neither interviewed nor approached.

All four soldiers say they were ordered by their commanding officer not to speak out, and all four soldiers provide evidence that authorities initiated a cover-up within hours of the prisoners’ deaths. Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman and men under his supervision have disclosed evidence in interviews with Harper’s Magazine that strongly suggests the three prisoners who died on June 9 had been transported to another location prior to their deaths. The guards’ accounts also reveal the existence of a previously unreported black site at Guantánamo where the deaths, or at least the events that led directly to the deaths, most likely occurred....
Hickman had seen a 2006 report from Seton Hall University Law School dealing with the deaths of the three prisoners, and he followed their subsequent work. After Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, he called Mark Denbeaux, the professor who had led the Seton Hall team. “I learned something from your report,” he said, “but I know some things you don’t.”

Third is the unofficial, though perhaps still instructive, analysis of Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani's father, a Saudi police official:

When Al-Zahrani viewed his son’s corpse, he saw evidence of a homicide. “There was a major blow to the head on the right side,” he said. “There was evidence of torture on the upper torso, and on the palms of his hand. There were needle marks on his right arm and on his left arm.” None of these details are noted in the U.S. autopsy report. “I am a law enforcement professional,” Al-Zahrani said. “I know what to look for when examining a body.”

This information has been met with, for the most part, deafening silence by the U.S. news media (and, for that matter, the Obama administration). Aside from attention by the blogosphere and the foreign press, and by a stray U.S. newspaper or two (like the St. Louis Post-Dispatch), there has been next-to-no reaction to this story. Let me repeat that:

The presentation of evidence that strongly suggests the United States tortured to death three Guantánamo detainees who had been charged with no crime, then covered up the homicides by staging their deaths as suicides, is being largely ignored by the U.S. news media.

On this blog we enjoy engaging in political debates, but from where I sit this story transcends political and/or party affiliation. We're talking about potential war crimes here. Violations of domestic and international laws, treaties, and protocol that -- despite its blustery denials -- the Bush administration appears to have committed.

I say "appears" because, of course, there are multiple sides to every story -- particularly where monumentally complex issues like homeland security and the War on Terror are concerned. Perhaps there is classified or unreleased information that, if made public, would dissipate the cloud of suspicion that hangs over the deaths of June 9, 2006. Perhaps there is a perfectly logical, legal explanation for the incredible circumstances under which these men died; for why their throats were removed before their bodies were returned to their loved ones; for why a fourth detainee described suffering extreme physical abuse on the very night the other men died, including, among other things, having his airway "cut off" and a mask placed over his face. Perhaps. But so long as this story is ignored and marginalized by the news media, silence will mean assent -- theirs and ours.

I remain ever hopeful that torture is something to which Americans, irrespective of their political identity, will refuse their assent. We'll see.

Does the "I" stand for "Incompetence"?

2010-01-19T12:37:00.005-05:00

From friend-of-the-blog CR, a.k.a. 007...

The FBI Sucks at Photoshop:

This week, the FBI released a “digitally-altered” image showing what Osama Bin Laden possibly looks like now that he’s older.

While the FBI claims to have used “cutting-edge” technology to create the image, a Spanish politician has noticed that the poster is a modified version of his campaign photo — he now finds his face in America’s most wanted list.

While on the surface it’s an amusing misstep by intelligence agencies, Gaspar Llamazares, the former leader of Spain’s United Left coalition, calls the move “shameless.” His safety is at risk, he told the BBC, and he no longer feels able to travel to America now that his likeness is on a wanted poster: “Bin Laden’s safety is not threatened by this but mine certainly is,” Llamazares said.

Left, Bin Laden in 1998; middle, the FBI image; right, Gaspar Llamazares

The FBI is quoted admitting to the error, saying that the artist found the photo on the web and didn’t know it was of a Spanish politician...

I'm actually sort of speechless. Talk about a Photoshop Disaster. Oy.

Why Are Professors More Likely to be Liberal than Conservative?

2010-01-18T21:51:00.004-05:00

According to a recent study, it's about choice. Liberals are more likely than conservatives to enter academe. Of course, there are other factors correlated with career choice. From the Times:

The characteristics that define one’s political orientation are also at the fore of certain jobs, the sociologists reported. Nearly half of the political lopsidedness in academia can be traced to four characteristics that liberals in general, and professors in particular, share: advanced degrees; a nonconservative religious theology (which includes liberal Protestants and Jews, and the nonreligious); an expressed tolerance for controversial ideas; and a disparity between education and income.

I suppose this implies that conservatives have a lower disparity between education and income, given that they are less likely to choose jobs in academe (I have to assume they are more likely to choose jobs in the private sector where the income is higher).

The article is unpublished (and thus has not gone through peer review), but can be read here. I would have liked to review it for the GBOC, but I've gotta prep lecture for tomorrow, burn my bra and finish painting that protest sign. Such is life in the liberal academic community.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

2010-01-18T10:04:00.001-05:00

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
~Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (1967)

The tough mind is sharp and penetrating, breaking through the crust of legends and myths and sifting the true from the false. The tough-minded individual is astute and discerning. He has a strong austere quality that makes for firmness of purpose and solidness of commitment.Who doubts that this toughness is one of man's greatest needs? Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.
~Strength to Love (1963)

One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
~Letters From a Birmingham Jail (1963)

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 19

2010-01-11T20:18:00.005-05:00

"Mark McGwire Admits Steroid Use"

Really? I can't believe he was using steroids!

(See what I did there with the font?)

Great NPR Story on Plea Bargains

2010-01-09T21:40:00.003-05:00

Just a quick note to pass along a great Talk of the Nation segment from earlier this week about plea bargains. Not surprisingly, several callers (including defense attorneys who have counseled their clients to take pleas, as well as defendants who have accepted pleas) identified desire to avoid lengthy prison terms as a primary incentive for plea bargaining. The callers and panelists (Loyola Law School Professor Laurie Levenson and Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project) also discussed the leverage plea bargains offer to prosecutors, who often overcharge initial offenses in anticipation of a lesser charge being accepted during a plea deal. (Levenson likened it to haggling with the dealership over the purchase of a new car; I thought immediately of the classic "ask-your-parents-for-a-pony-when-all-you-really-want-is-a-bunny" strategy). Of course, the panelists also noted the absolute necessity of pleas, as the current system is simply incapable of sending to every case to trial.

I thought this was a great discussion, and it would be a great resource for a class discussion on plea bargaining.

Proposed CA amendment

2010-01-07T07:56:00.002-05:00

From yesterday's Chronicle, an article on the Governator's State of the State address, in particular a proposed amendment to the CA constitution that would impose a floor for higher ed spending and a ceiling for prison spending in the state.

Currently CA spends about 11% of its budget on prisons and 7.5% on the state college/university system. The proposal would require no less than 10% of the budget be allocated to colleges/universities and no more than 7% on prisons.

Recognizing the current distribution is troubling (quoting the article..."What does it say about a state that focuses more on prison uniforms than caps and gowns?" Mr. Schwarzenegger said in his final State of the State address. "It simply is not healthy."), am I alone in thinking the proposed amendment is equally fraught with potential problems?

Assuming relatively static budgets, you're talking about cutting prisons by almost 1/3. What are the secondary and tertiary implications of that cut? What happens if the state is successfully sued for its new conditions of confinement, but is limited in what it can do to remedy that problem? What happens when the next bubble bursts and you have a ceiling on expenditures (for ANY industry/element of the state budget)?

Conversely, I'm not sure I'm a fan of saying you HAVE to spend a certain amount on any aspect of the budget. When the economy rebounds, can you spend 10% on higher education without wasting money to satisfy the mandate? Certainly we can assume the higher ed system could use some additional investment (my own school is somewhere around 1/4-1/3 of a billion dollars in the hole on capital improvements), once you catch up are you being wasteful in flush times?

Perhaps the Governor is simply trying to float the idea and realizes the starting point here is also not healthy. Perhaps the goal is something more moderate, like a requirement that the spending levels at least be on-par with each other (which at first though, I could probably back).

I will now pause so Dr. HnK can tell me the error of my thinking...

You Don't Say....

2010-01-04T19:48:00.002-05:00

Hi, everyone! Welcome to 2010!

I thought I'd kick off our first post of the new year with a headline from the Department of "You Don't Say..." Enjoy!

NBA Player calls gun incident 'a mistake'

Where's the NY Kid to give some analysis when you need him?

Happy Holidays!!

2009-12-22T21:03:00.003-05:00

Well, my lengthy blogging absence is proof of just how busy things have been at Chez Huginkiss lately. Ugh! I know this is a busy time of year for everyone, so I wanted to take a moment to check in, and to wish my fellow blogging peeps and our readers (if anyone is still reading, that is!) a restful, relaxing holiday season. Best wishes for a happy, healthy 2010!!

The Perils of Blogging Attorneys

2009-12-18T16:11:00.003-05:00

In case any of our esteemed readers wonder why the AZCAJD doesn't post much about his work life, even though it is like a soap opera, read on. While much of the exposure that attorneys receive is negative, especially indigent criminal defense attorneys, the vast majority concern themselves with ethical considerations and hypotheticals on a regular basis. This particular situation is unfortunate because I sympathize with the need to decompress from what amounts to the most unappreciated and maligned job in law. But, the sordid details of the daily life in indigent criminal defense must remain in the office if they fall under the duty of confidentiality. Sorry I can't deliver the juicy stuff y'all.

Steven Seagal Lawman!

2009-12-08T08:31:00.003-05:00

Ok...I had such a massive fanboy moment last night as I was channel surfing that it must be posted in perpetuity. On A&E, there is a new reality show, "Steven Seagal - Lawman." Yes...that Steven Seagal. Turns out he is somehow a certified Sheriff's deputy in some parish in Louisiana.

Aside from the childish delight and insane giggling that I couldn't control, the defense lawyer in me really just wanted to read the police reports. Can you even imagine the coolness of having a client who actually tried to resist arrest AGAINST STEVEN SEAGAL???? I think it might go a little like this:

"Seriously, how did you think taking a swing at Steven Seagal was going to end?"
"I had a lot to drink that night and wasn't sure if it was really him. I mean he looked fatter than in those movies."
"He was Casey Ryback for Christ's sake! What were you thinking? He could make a bomb out of a teacup and break your wrist in the same motion."
"I wanted to see if he was as tough as he plays in the movies."
"Well...?"
"You see my arm in this cast don't you?"

AND...can you imagine deposing and cross-examining Steven Seagal in court?????

"Mr. Seagal, do you honestly expect this jury to believe that my client called you a "punk biatch" and tried to hit you with a hammer? You are Steven Seagal, is that correct? From such movies as Hard to Kill, Marked for Death, and Out for Justice?"

I'm so happy right now. DVR, get to work.

Thoughts on Domestic Violence

2009-12-07T14:35:00.003-05:00

The situation with Tiger Woods really got me thinking of issues of domestic violence. More specifically, how we as a collective society treat domestic violence perpetrated by women against men so differently. Let's make this clear, I could give a rat's behind about Tiger. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid powerful people can be. Completely self-destructive is more like it. That is not the issue to me.

What is the issue is how the comedians think it is so funny and well deserved, however well earned, that she likely attacked him with a golf club. AZCAJD and others may chime in, but that is aggravated assault in most states. To suggest this is funny and fodder for late night television is a sad commentary. I really do not watch much late night tv, but is this the sort of "humor" that occurred when whats-his-face beat up Rhianna? Is this really funny? I hate to say this because it does not shed good light on my TV viewing habits, but late the other night I was channel surfing and happened to spend a few too many minutes on the tv-show "Cheaters." OK, laugh Dr. Cranky, I know. In case you do not know it (and God I hope none of you do), the show is a "reality show" that intends to have partners confront cheating spouses/partners. This one show had a woman confront her cheating boyfriend in a public park. She proceeded to start punching the hell out of him - he ran away, arguably to avoid a physical confrontation as I doubt he would have had any trouble controlling her based on his physical size. She literally chased him down and continued assaulting him. NONE of the tv personalities intervened...just let it happened for more than 5 minutes (and and off)...as if he deserved it. I wonder if such personalities/tv crew would have stood by silently videotaping if the man was beating up the woman.

I say all of this because I dare say the domestic violence advocate community is not serious about addressing this problem. I hope at some point we expand the discourse on domestic violence to include a discussion on violent relationships and not merely violent men. I am not familiar with national statistics, but I suspect the data indicate many such cases are men clearly assaulting women. But I also suspect this is a much more complicated discussion than simply that.

In terms of admitting I occasionally watch a small amount of "Cheaters," I feel as if I just went to confession...

The unheralded return of the AZCAJD

2009-12-05T12:36:00.002-05:00

Hello old friends and new readers. The AZCAJD has been under a heavy criminal caseload as of late, and has been neglectful of posting both informative information, as well as scathing critiques of events and people I find worthy of my fury.

Well...while everyone has been obsessing about whether Tiger Woods was having an affair and what exactly happened on the night of the 2 mph fender bender, the practice of criminal law in Arizona has been juicier and more mindblowing than any Housewives of FILL IN THE BLANK, or whichever parent of 18-tuplets is getting a book deal.

For those who live outside of the desert Southwest, there have been legal and political fireworks as of late with everyone's favorite "Toughest Sheriff" Joe Arpaio. Now, there are any number of reasons to disagree with/want to vomit at Sheriff Joe's policies, dating back to when I was actually a grad student in the 1990's with some of the more esteemed bloggers here. Aside from the arguments for human rights / civil rights abuses and flagrant backside wiping with the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, you may have discovered via cable news or YouTube, Sheriff Joe and his underlings do not think too highly of the time-honored concept of attorney-client privilege.

In case you don't, a Maricopa County Detention Officer took a document from a criminal defense attorney's file, in court, on camera, and not only read it, but had another detention officer photocopy it. Sheriff Joe not only supported his DO's decision, but, when Superior Court Judge Donahoe found the DO in contempt of court and ordered him to hold a press conference and apologize or report to the jail, Arpaio reported to the world that only he orders press conferences.

End result, the DO decided that he was entitled to keep everyone safe with backing by Arpaio, said that he would not apologize, and reported to the clink (with pay). The next day, 20 Sheriff's Office deputies and DO's held an alleged sick out, and a bomb threat was called into the Superior Court by a person "disgruntled with the Public Defender's Office". The DO, stupidly, remains in jail.

In case you are wondering, no...there is no real lesson I am trying to teach here. Had it been my file, I would have likely been on the wrong end of a taser and a State Bar licensing hearing, so I'm glad it was an attorney with a little more self-control. In the practice of law, there is truly nothing more sacred than the attorney-client privilege and the sovereignty of that client's casefile.

Hands off Gestapo. Hands off.

December Already?!

2009-12-02T20:35:00.006-05:00

Where has the time gone?! It's been over a week since our last post...and it's already December! I have been slammed with end of the semester craziness -- this is our last week of classes, then final exams are next week. Then the rest of December will be spent getting manuscripts sent out for review and wrapping up a grant application. Busy, busy!

Meanwhile, I've got a lightning round in the works -- look for it soon. There's been a lot of good crime news to discuss recently -- I just wish I had more time to discuss it!

P.S. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, VELMA!!!!! (Sorry this is a teensy bit late -- I spaced out last night!)

On "The Annual Misuse of Hate Crime Statistics"

2009-11-24T20:59:00.004-05:00

Via Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish:

The League of Ordinary Gentlemen blog has identified the dangers of using UCR data (in this case, on hate crime statistics) to generate year-to-year comparisons or establish annual trends:

Every year around this time, the FBI publishes its statutorily-mandated annual report on hate crime statistics. Like clockwork, every year that report gets misused no matter what the FBI does to discourage that misuse (previous examples of misuse here). This year is no exception, as several prominent liberal sites have picked up on the lede that this year’s report shows a “sharp increase” in anti-gay hate crime while also noting that race-based hate crimes barely decreased at all.

The problem is that these particular FBI statistics are virtually useless for evaluating year-to-year trends – always have been, always will be. This year, the FBI itself went out of its way to warn against such readings, stating “our Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program doesn’t report trends in hate crime stats—yearly increases or decreases often occur because the number of agencies who report to us varies from year to year."...
The point here is that it is extraordinarily difficult – if not impossible – to draw any kind of conclusions about trends in hate crime on the basis of the FBI’s annual reports, unless there are truly massive swings in a data set or unless a trend continues for a number of years without any plausible explanation related to changes in law enforcement priorities or state-level hate crimes legislation.

Because of the severe limitations of this annual report, I am indeed skeptical whether it has any value whatsoever. At a minimum, however, interpretations of the data in these reports need to be limited to assessments of where law enforcement priorities lie and of what forms of hate crimes are, relatively speaking, the most common.

I am reminded of Rick Rosenfeld's excellent observations about the misuse of crime statistics more generally. Discuss!

Monday Morning Feminist Humor

2009-11-23T10:08:00.007-05:00

Over the last week or so, my Women, Crime, & Justice class has been covering women working in police departments, prisons and jails, and courts. My lectures on these topics include discussions of how stereotypes about women historically were used to justify their exclusion from CJ system jobs: e.g., women lack the strength and stamina necessary to perform physically demanding jobs like police work, women are emotional creatures and therefore cannot be trusted to make important decisions like sentencing offenders, etc.

Amid these discussions, last week's Parks & Recreation (which, as I mentioned before, is now one of my favorite shows) featured a storyline that addressed these same stereotypes to great comedic effect.

In this episode, Leslie (Amy Poehler) objects to the annual guys-only hunting trip taken by the men in the Parks Department, and insists that the women join the group on this year's excursion. In time, Ron Swanson -- the mustachioed guy's guy who is Director of the Parks Department, and Leslie's boss -- is grazed in the head by a stray bullet. The accidental shooter is one of the other men in the group, Tom, who is a novice hunter. However, Leslie -- an experienced hunter -- knows that Tom is hunting without a license and doesn't want him to get into trouble, so she takes the fall for shooting Ron. In this scene, Leslie is being questioned by a sexist law enforcement officer who is investigating the shooting. I laughed like crazy at the rapid-fire "womanly" excuses Leslie makes for her supposed blunder. It's great stuff -- enjoy!

Anti-Bullying Legislation

2009-11-17T11:09:00.002-05:00

I am curious to get feedback from my GBOC peeps. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is considering introducing Anti-Bullying legislation that would force school districts to report both the occurrence of bullying in schools and report instances of punishment for bullying. There is a story in the Globe today about this. It reads:

A coalition of law enforcement officials, academic experts, parents, and young victims will hold a press conference today on Beacon Hill to push for legislation to crack down on bullying among schoolchildren.

The press conference, which will include the Anti-Defamation League and Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, comes prior to a public hearing this afternoon before the Joint Committee on Education.

The Globe reported on Sunday that after years of delays the Legislature appears poised to crack down on bullying, with hearings beginning this week on nearly a dozen bills that would force local schools to respond more aggressively to instances of cruelty among students.

I wonder about your thoughts on the need and value for such legislation.

New Comments Policy

2009-11-14T17:56:00.002-05:00

Hello faithful readers,

Due to an inordinate amount of spammy comments we've been getting, I have changed the blog settings so that anonymous comments and comments from unregistered users are no longer permitted. I'm genuinely sorry if that discourages "rule-abiding" anonymous commenters from sharing their thoughts, but hopefully once this tide of spam is over we can go back to allowing anonymous comments.

Thanks for reading!

Emailing Undergraduate Students - your protocols and preferences

2009-11-11T22:04:00.002-05:00

In past years, I've chatted with Patch, Dr. Cranky, Velma, and others about how undergraduate students verbally address us as professors...some of us are keen on making it clear that we are to be called Dr., while others are comfortable with our students calling us by our first name. In this regard, I was wondering about your reasons behind why you do what you do.

Secondly, I was curious about email communications with your undergraduate students. How formal or informal are you? Do you make sure you always start and end your email the same way (befitting a form letter, except with different content in the body)? Do you always include your professional sig at the end? Do you always start with Dear... or Hi... or do you sometimes say "Hey...." Patch and I email each other with the occasional "Yo," but we would never do this to a student. Do you always make sure you use proper Sentence case, or do you sometimes type out hurried lower-case emails to an inquiry from an undergrad? Finally, do you always spell-check?

Thirdly, do you provide your cell phone number to undergraduates - perhaps on your syllabus - perhaps because you know they'll have questions for an upcoming exam and you'll be out of town for conference or research or something? I personally don't, but I know of a handful that do - and they all say that this has never been abused.

With the computer-mediated communication revolution, and the ubiquity of short, terse, informal messages being sent back and forth via email, text, social networking sites, and so forth - are we allowing informality to pervade what should possibly remain formal communication with students?

I realize that communication with grad students is a totally different beast, and that we allow/support more informality with them, especially those who work for us as graduate assistants.

Pap

PS. This is the 600th post! Congratulations to The General Blog of Crime for being prolific and awesome!

WWI Veterans at Eastern State

2009-11-11T12:07:00.012-05:00

At ASC, I took a tour of the Eastern State Correctional Facility. I have been there before, but a plaque caught my eye in the main rotunda.

The plaque includes the prison numbers of 121 individuals and the inscription reads,

"To the everlasting honor of those inmates of the Eastern State Penitentiary of Pennsylvania who served in the army and navy during the world war."

I found a brief discussion of the plaque and the role of parolees in WWI here. It appears that as the war waned on, some parolees were allowed to volunteer for service. The Warden of the prison at the time, Bob McKenty, went out of his way to facilitate enlistment for some of his parolees.

A few more pictures for fun.

The prison facade reminiscent of England and the monarchy:

A hallway of the radial style prison:

As originally designed, Eastern State was a great model of Bentham's Panopticon.

High Profile Execution

2009-11-10T23:07:00.002-05:00

John Allen Muhammad -- the so-called "D.C. Sniper" -- was executed tonight by lethal injection after both the U.S. Supreme Court and Virginia governor Tim Kaine declined to intervene in the case.

This is certainly the highest profile execution in the U.S. in some time. Anybody have any thoughts or observations about this execution?

A Case Study: Juvenile Life without Parole

2009-11-09T13:45:00.005-05:00

A poignant video produced by California State Senator Yee. I am anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court Decisions.

Thanks for the notes of congrats, I really appreciate it. I also forgot to wish Cranky a HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Way to Go, Velma!

2009-11-06T13:32:00.003-05:00

I've been waiting to write this post until after the official celebration in Philly:

Congratulations to Velma, the 2009 ASC Division on Corrections & Sentencing Distinguished Young Scholar!!

We are all so proud of you!

Story Gives New Meaning to "Self-Reported Crime"

2009-11-05T09:15:00.004-05:00

Not sure if this made national headlines yet, but it has been circulating around our area for a few days. A woman recently called 911 to report a drunk driver. Turns out she was reporting herself:

Dispatcher: Clark County 911
Mary Strey: Somebody's really drunk driving down Granton Road...
Dispatcher: ...Which way are they going?
Mary Strey: They are going, um...
Dispatcher: Towards Granton or towards Neillsville?
Mary Strey: Towards Granton
Dispatcher: Okay are you behind them, or...
Mary Strey: No, I am them
Dispatcher: You am them?
Mary Strey: Yes, I am them
Dispatcher: Okay, so you want to call and report that you're driving drunk?
Mary Strey: Yes

You just can't make this stuff up...

So Sad About Missing Philly...

2009-11-03T21:22:00.003-05:00

This is the first ASC in almost a decade that I have to miss, and I'm so bummed. I hope Patch, ShockProf, Velma, Scoob, or Cranks get some photos of the festivities and will be good enough to share them. Have a safe trip, y'all, and have fun!

My Brilliant Idea

2009-10-27T22:40:00.006-04:00

Last night while I was catching up on my e-mail, the Trailing Spouse sat next to me enthralled by a Parole Board marathon on the Biography Channel. Each episode of this true-crime show (which you all know I'm obsessed with) profiles incarcerated offenders in a particular state who are up for parole, with the show's final minutes featuring the big reveal of the parole board's decision. (Will they or won't they? Oh, the suspense!) This program, like several others on its sister channel A&E, is narrated by Bill Kurtis, whose name arguably has become synonymous with crime and justice television journalism. And then inspiration struck:

Somebody needs to invite Bill Kurtis to be the keynote speaker at a criminology/criminal justice annual meeting!

Seriously, wouldn't you attend a keynote address by Bill Kurtis, if only just to hear his smooth, dulcet baritone in person? I know I would!

Patch: What do you think? Can MCJA make this happen? I'm on a couple of ACJS committees -- maybe I'll float this idea around and see what happens.

Tell me this isn't a stroke of brilliance!

What Types of Research Should NIJ Fund?

2009-10-26T14:52:00.003-04:00

Today I received this call for input from the ACJS Executive Director:

ACJS Needs Your Input

ACJS has been invited to meet with Kristina Rose, Acting Director of the National Institute of Justice, for the purpose of sharing our thoughts on the greatest research needs from the perspective of our membership and what matters to us regarding the NIJ role. To that end, we need your assistance. Janice Joseph, ACJS President, and I will represent ACJS at this meeting. We solicit your input as we prepare for this meeting.

As you are aware, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ’s mission is to provide objective, independent, evidence-based knowledge and tools to meet the challenges of crime and justice, particularly at the state and local levels.

Please reply to this message and share your thoughts by entering your responses to the questions below...

Please provide your response to any or all of the following questions by noon EST, Thursday, October 29, 2009:

1. What priorities should NIJ pursue?
2. From your perspective, what is/are the greatest research need/s in the field of criminal justice/criminology?
3. Please indicate what, if any, changes you would recommend regarding NIJ funding?
4. What are the most important innovations that could be made in funding for research?
5. What do you want us to be sure to discuss with the NIJ Acting Director that wasn’t covered in any of the previous questions?

Thoughts from my fellow bloggers or our readers? What types of research would you tell NIJ to fund? From where you sit, what are the key crime and justice research needs? I'll share my thoughts in the comments, but I'm curious to hear from others, too.

Big News About Federal Medical Marijuana Policy

2009-10-19T12:11:00.004-04:00

Although 14 states have passed laws legalizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, marijuana is classified by the federal government as a Schedule I narcotic, and thus remains illegal at the federal level. However, today the Obama administration announced that federal officials will not target medical marijuana users who comply with their states' laws:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes...

A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law...

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

This is a smart, long overdue move, and hopefully is the first tiny, baby step on the path toward reclassifying (or declassifiying) marijuana, which has no business being a Schedule I drug.

P.S. I would like acknowledgment for resisting the urge to begin this post with the following taunt: "Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 18

2009-10-17T09:22:00.004-04:00

"Rape a weapon of war in Congo, activists say"

Haven't activists been saying that for years now?

Friday CJ Funnies: Comparative Criminology Edition

2009-10-16T10:07:00.010-04:00

I've been a fan of NBC's Parks & Recreation since it premiered last season, mostly because Amy Poehler can do no wrong in my eyes. (Exhibit A: her female-empowerment series aimed at young women called Smart Girls at the Party. Exhibit B: Her awesome Sarah Palin rap, performed while hugely pregnant.)

P&R is about the inner workings of a small-town city government (Pawnee, IN). Amy Poehler plays Leslie Knope, the Deputy Director of the Parks & Recreation Department who is on a mission to turn a huge pit into a city park. In last night's episode, government representatives from Pawnee's sister city -- Baraqua (ha!), Venezuela -- pay a visit to Pawnee. Poehler's SNL bud Fred Armisen (who, Wiki tells me, is half-Venezuelan) plays the Chavez-loving ringleader of the visiting dignitaries, who in this clip attend a Pawnee town hall meeting as part of their tour. Enjoy hearing Armisen's character describe how differently things would go down in his hometown, and keep your fingers crossed that you're never locked up abroad in Venezuela! Happy Friday, all!

A Teaching Moment

2009-10-15T23:14:00.005-04:00

About 18 months ago, several high school and middle school teachers in Haslett, Michigan decided to celebrate the end of the school year. They went to a popular East Lansing sports bar, then went back to a private residence for more drinking and some marijuana. Fun, fun.

When one of the young female teachers passed out after a little too much fun, several male teachers at the party drew on her body in permanent marker. Known as drunk shaming, they covered her body (and face) with vulgarities and sexual imagery (by the way, searching for the term "drunk shaming" in Google results in a significant number of hits on this story).

When this teacher regained consciousness, she went to the police and reported this as a crime. She honestly couldn't remember what had happened and feared that she had been sexually assualted (in fact, there is evidence that she had sex with a man at the party. He claims it was consensual, she can't remember).

The most detailed article I've seen is here, along with pictures provided by the victim. The men claim it was all in fun, and drew on her body because "they love her".

And did this make the victim feel loved?

[The victim] has other words for how the drawings made her feel: “degraded, defiled, lifeless, treated like an object, treated like, frankly, a bathroom stall.”

So, what have we learned? Some men show women love by degrading them.

I hope the students in Haslett can learn from this shameful behavior by their teachers. Here are a couple of take-aways:

First, a note to potential offenders: this is not an appropriate way to treat someone you "love". It's not even an appropriate way to treat someone you don't like.

Second, a note to potential victims: if you lose control of yourself through excessive alcohol and drug use, bad things can happen. Even when you're with people you trust.

Blog Action Day 2009

2009-10-15T09:33:00.004-04:00

Hi everyone. It's Blog Action Day again, and this year's cause is climate change. As with the previous two Blog Action Days (which sought to reduce poverty and help protect the environment, respectively), Blog Action Day 2009 is dedicated to consciousness-raising, this time around the issues of global warming and climate change.

Want to learn how you can help? Visit the Blog Action Day website for more information and ideas about ways to get involved.

Online Education

2009-10-13T10:21:00.002-04:00

Saturday Night Live strikes again. Too funny.

Spirituality & Criminal Justice Reform

2009-10-12T23:41:00.001-04:00

Recently I came across some fascinating information that I think is worth sharing.

The other day I was prepping a lecture about the criminal justice response to women drug offenders using chapters from Gendered (In)Justice, a feminist criminology reader edited by Barb Koons-Witt and Pam Schram (fellow Spartans -- holla!). Reprinted in that book is a 1998 Women & Therapy article about treatment programs for incarcerated women, in which the author discusses seven steps for fixing the criminal justice system as outlined by Bo Lozoff, founder of the Human Kindness Foundation and the Prison-Ashram Project:

The primary purpose of the Prison-Ashram Project is to inspire and encourage prisoners and prison staff to recognize their depth as human beings, and to behave accordingly...

In 1973, Bo Lozoff and Ram Dass came up with the idea to help prisoners to use their prisons as ashrams if they were tired enough of seeing themselves as convicts just biding their time until they were released.

Ashram is a Sanskrit word meaning "House of God." In the East, an ashram is a place where people live for some period of time in order to strengthen their spiritual practice and self-discipline. Many ashrams are very strict. Residents, or ashramites, abide by an exhaustive schedule and live very simply, without many comforts or luxuries.

Lozoff also has authored a book, We're All Doing Time, which apparently is hugely popular with inmates both inside and outside the U.S.:

[N]ow in its 17th printing, [We're All Doing Time] is available in several languages. It was hailed by the Village Voice as "one of the ten books everyone in the world should read," and has been lauded by prison staff and prisoners alike as one of the most helpful books ever written for true self-improvement and rehabilitation...

Is anyone familiar with Lozoff's book, or the Prison-Ashram Project? They both take such a different, innovative approach to incarceration that I find really fascinating.

Anyway, back to Lozoff's seven steps for fixing the criminal justice system. They are:

Learn to recognize the influence of socially-sanctioned hatred:
"We human beings seem to have a built-in temptation to objectify other groups of people in order to feel superior to them or to find a scapegoat for all our problems...People who break the law are not all alike. They are an enormously diverse group of human beings.
Make drugs a public health problem instead of a criminal justice problem.
Separate violent and non-violent offenders right from the start.
Regain compassion and respect for those who wrong us.
Allow for transformation, not merely rehabilitation.
Join and support the restorative justice movement.
Take the issue of crime and punishment personally:
Just as with civil rights, and women's rights, we have to recognize that the national shame over our prison system is affecting us all, and it's getting worse every day. This doesn't mean that we all have to become crusaders for prison reform, but we do have to be more mindful of what we say and who and what we vote for.

Interesting, no? I am intrigued by the mix of spiritual, political, personal, and social solutions to the crime problem Lozoff suggests. What do others think?

Image Source

GBOC Lightning Round: Friday Morning Edition

2009-10-09T08:00:00.001-04:00

Kick off your Friday morning with another GBOC lightning round. As always, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!

Item 1: "What is the Age of Responsibility?"
Wednesday's Talk of the Nation posed that very complex question to journalist Alan Greenblatt of Governing Magazine and Temple University professor Laurence Steinberg. The conversation came in response to Greenblatt's recent article describing the "mixed messages" young people receive from state and local laws that dictate different minimum ages for different behaviors (e.g., consenting to sex, drinking alcohol, voting, etc.). Of interest to criminologists, the experts discussed both the minimum legal drinking age and the processing of juvenile offenders as adults. In addition, Steinberg -- who appeared on NPR last year to criticize the adultification of youthful offenders -- explained how chronological age restrictions bear little correlation with developmental science regarding the maturation of adolescent brains; however, as meaningful tests for maturity are impossible to develop, chronological age is the only viable proxy for maturity we've got. Finally, the conversation touched on some of the issues we discussed here with respect to LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders. If you've got a few minutes, it's definitely worth a listen (or read).

Item 2: The High Cost of Capital Punishment
Speaking of LWOP sentences, last week the Death Penalty Information Center altered us to a recent NYT editorial encouraging states to abolish the death penalty based on economic considerations:

To the many excellent reasons to abolish the death penalty — it’s immoral, does not deter murder and affects minorities disproportionately — we can add one more. It’s an economic drain on governments with already badly depleted budgets...

According to the [DPIC], keeping inmates on death row in Florida costs taxpayers $51 million a year more than holding them for life without parole. North Carolina has put 43 people to death since 1976 at $2.16 million per execution. The eventual cost to taxpayers in Maryland for pursuing capital cases between 1978 and 1999 is estimated to be $186 million for five executions...

A Republican state senator in Kansas, Carolyn McGinn, pointed out that her state, which restored the death penalty in 1994, had not executed anybody in more than 40 years. In February, she introduced a bill to replace capital punishment with life without parole. The bill gained considerable attention but stalled. Similar arguments were made, unsuccessfully, in states such as New Hampshire and Maryland. Colorado considered a bill to end capital punishment and spend the money saved on solving cold cases. But this year, only New Mexico went all the way, abolishing executions in March.

I don't have much commentary about this, other than to add that financial considerations provide lawmakers who oppose capital punishment a more palatable platform for public opposition than, say, moral appeals. Thoughts from others?

Item 3: Say it Ain't So, Joe!
Bad news yesterday for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (he of the pink clothing policies for DUI offenders and, more importantly, the bobblehead on Velma's desk):

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff's department have had an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security since 2007 that allows his department to enforce federal immigration laws. But Arpaio says the federal agency is moving to revise the agreement to limit that power to checking the immigration status of inmates already in his Phoenix jail...

Now he faces a Justice Department investigation into allegations of civil rights abuses, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona is suing the sheriff over immigration raids conducted by his department. The class-action lawsuit alleges that Arpaio has abused the power delegated to him under his agreement with Homeland Security, known as the 287(g) program.

Hmmm. Perhaps "America's Toughest Sheriff" is about to become a little less tough? Interesting to see how this develops.

Item 4: President Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize!
And he's only the third sitting president to do so.

(I'm sure Scooby, in particular, is thrilled.)

Obama and SNL

2009-10-07T10:35:00.005-04:00

I don't know how to insert the video clips into these things (you guys who can are so cool!), but I just watched the Obama parody on SNL on youtube after reading a CNN story on it. Wow is it pretty funny. I know we are not supposed to tell jokes about this President or laugh at him, but I thought I would post the link for a little morning humor. All of a sudden I don't feel so bad about our future.

Ed. Note: Here you go!

Technology, Scientific Validity, and Privacy

2009-10-07T06:18:00.003-04:00

An interesting article went up on cnn.com last night. The author discusses on-going federal and scientific efforts to infer intent using physical cues (i.e., heart rate, respiration, perspiration, eye movement). In other words, can we use different scientific steps to infer whether someone is a risk in airports (and presumably other high-security areas such as government facilities, courts, prisons, etc.).

The idea driving this technological evolution is that current screening methods apply roughly the same tests of physical "evidence" (our clothing and personal belongings) using for the past 30-odd years. Shouldn't we be able to use more advanced science to predict whether someone's biological indicators suggest an elevated level of fear, anxiety, etc.? That's not to say current methods always work; see a recent story on body-cavity bombs. Enough said on that for now.

The article points out some interesting positions. First, there is not real science linking physical markers with intent; while we can measure if you are in a heightened physical state, does that mean you intend to cause harm to others or does it mean you are a nervous flier, worried about missing a flight, anxious because you are going on a job interview, etc.? The point being, we know virtually nothing about the generation of false positives in such screening or the capacity of people to condition themselves for false negatives. On the latter point, we hear about polygraphs being "tricked" through a variety of methods. I've heard (though can't locate hard evidence) the thumb-tack-in-the-shoe trick can generate false negatives. Likewise, if I'm a fanatical believer who is at peace with my actions, will any of these tests trigger scrutiny if I'm calm about that which I'm about to do?

Second, the civil liberty issue here is, frankly, something I had not considered. I'm not sure I fully agree with the ACLU position, but it is a matter for discussion. My initial response is that in an absolute sense I might have privacy from government monitoring of those parts of my body-functioning, I don't know that right is maintained when I seek to enter certain secure areas. If they can question whether a baby bottle is breast milk or something malicious, I suspect we can agree they can measure my heart rate using remote detectors.

Then again, maybe this just intrigues me as a card-carrying futurist.

WOW! John Laub is Obama's Pick for NIJ Director!

2009-10-06T13:56:00.004-04:00

This is exciting news indeed! Here's the University of Maryland press release:

On Friday, October 2, 2009, President Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate John H. Laub to the position of director of the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
John Laub is the Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is also an Affiliate Faculty Member in the Department of Sociology at the University and a Visiting Scholar in the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard. He has served as the President and as a fellow of the American Society of Criminology, which awarded him the Edwin H. Sutherland Award. He was also named a Distinguished Scholar-Teacher at the University of Maryland for the 2006-2007 academic year. Dr. Laub was the Editor of the Journal of Quantitative Criminology for five years and currently serves as an Associate Editor of Criminology. From 2002 to 2008, Dr. Laub was a member of the Committee on Law and Justice of the National Academies of Science. He has published two award winning books and many research articles in the areas of crime and the life course, juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice, criminal victimization, and the history of criminology. He received his B.A. degree from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in criminal justice from the State University of New York at Albany.

When nominating Dr. Laub and nine others to their respective positions, President Obama said, "These men and women bring with them a wealth of experience and talent, and I am grateful for their willingness to commit themselves to public service. I look forward to working with them in these important roles in the coming months and years."

Laub will be joined by former John Jay faculty member Ellen Scrivner, whom Obama recently selected as Deputy Director.

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? Discuss!

Tenure and Faculty of Color

2009-10-06T12:39:00.005-04:00

Yes...it's me again today.

There is a great story in the Boston Globe today about tenure at a local university - Emerson College (liberal arts communication university). The story is about racial disparities in the granting of tenure (although as always, the Globe presents only half the story...they fail to draw any comparisons to white faculty).

The story is quite interesting. I am not sure what to draw from it besides just an interesting "factoid." Needless to say, the story hits a little close to home for me. Interestingly, the article states an outside panel will be convened to review how promotion and tenure policies are applied to minority candidates. I guess I found that interesting...how about how they are applied to all candidates?

I really don't have much of a reaction beyond that. I guess part of me (maybe just being naive) finds it hard to believe that university tenure and promotion guidelines would discriminate (intentionally or otherwise) against minorities. Especially at small liberal arts institutions and especially in places like Boston.

I am curious to hear thoughts about this case.

Police-on-Police Crime and Restraining Orders

2009-10-06T12:02:00.005-04:00

There is an interesting case evolving in the Boston Police Department. A female officer recently made an allegation that a male officer repeatedly raped her, and that she recently found out she was pregnant as a result of a recent rape event. The facts of the case are that both were traveling to CT to participate in a shooting competition - for those who don't know, this is not uncommon. Many large departments have competitive teams that travel around the country participating in events of this sort. After a night of drinking, so the allegation goes, the male officer raped her. He allegedly repeatedly raped her after they returned with threats that he will tell her husband and/or shoot them both (he happens to be a sharp shooter).

The woman recently came forward with the allegations after telling her husband she was pregnant with the other officer’s child. The accused officer claims the sexual contact was consensual and she only made the allegation after she found out she was pregnant and told her husband. It is shaping up to be quite a "he said/she said."

She requested that a restraining order be granted. The judge recently vacated the restraining order on a technicality.

Among other things, I am wondering the implications of a restraining order for a police officer. I would assume such an allegation would also result in a temporary prohibition from using a firearm. The implications are such that the officer would not be able to do their job. While such restraining orders and firearm prohibitions are not uncommon, this is really damaging to an officer trying to do their job. Absent some absolutely compelling reason (very high burden in this case), should judges be reluctant to make such restrictions on police as it could result in them not being able to work?

Back in Black

2009-10-05T09:47:00.002-04:00

The U.S. Supreme Court opens a new term today, and of course there is a new face in the line-up as Justice Sonia Sotomayor begins her tenure after replacing retired justice David Souter.

There will be several cases of interest to criminologists before the Court this session:

The court is also taking on the issue of gun rights again. Last year, the court declared for the first time that the constitutional right to bear arms is an individual right that puts some limits on federal laws and regulations. Specifically, the court struck down a total ban on handguns in the District of Columbia.

This term, in a case involving a Chicago gun ban, the court examines whether the same limits apply to state and local laws.

In the criminal law field, two cases from Florida test whether it is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a minor to life in prison without parole for crimes that do not involve a death.

One case involves a 13-year-old sentenced to life in prison without parole for sexual battery. The other case involves a 17-year-old sentenced to life after violating his probation for an earlier armed robbery.

As for white-collar criminal law, the court will examine the federal law that allows business executives to be prosecuted for depriving shareholders of their honest services — and similarly allows prosecutors to bring charges against public officials for depriving citizens of their honest serves.

At least one justice, Antonin Scalia, has suggested that the expansive phrase "honest services" invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors, because it's so broad that no citizen can know what conduct is illegal.

Have a thought about the criminal law (or other) cases before the SCOTUS this term? Let us know in the comments!

P.S. Like the post title? Here's a little AC/DC to kick off your Monday!

Does SNL's Seth Myers Read the GBOC?

2009-10-05T09:27:00.006-04:00

Surely he does, considering that last week's Weekend Update Thursday segment featured bits on the Roman Polanski arrest, AND the new Arizona law I blogged about. He even used my "shot" joke! Thanks for reading, Seth! We love you, too!