The Criminological Mind

Casey Anthony Tries To Plea Incompetence

It is no secret that throughout history plenty of people who commit serious crimes try to plea insanity or some form of medical disorder. Doing so, they are able to get an easier sentence for example, an insane asylum which they rather over prison anyday. Although they do try this it often does not work which i feel it should’nt work when the crime is severe enough. I do feel like some people are mentally unstable and cannot function in a “normal” society. I do however feel like in this case of casey anthony the plea should have never even been up for consideration. She was accused of killing her two year daughter and during her deliberation  with her lawyer they brought up the fact that she could plea mental incompetence but after 3 psychologist examined her they found that she was indeed competent. This shows the kind of crimes that people try to get away with by pleading to be “insane”. Im not saying that no one is incompetent but i feel like people use that too much. This is a big problem with medicalizing deviance. Deviance is just that, an individual go against the “norm” and rules of society for either their own gain or their personal pleasure which either should not be backed by science. Understandably we have to be sure that we arent throwing the wrong people in jail (witch hunt) but we should not support criminals by saying they have something medically wrong with them.

Facebook post prompts new trial of brothers who have spent 25 years in jail for murder

There is a movie titled “Law abiding citizen”. This movie sharply satirizes the holes in the laws existing in our current society. This movie awakens the fact on how many criminals openly evades the judgment of law through the holds in the laws enacted by people. The protagonist is enraged on how the trust can be displaced in the structured system of law. The protagonist vows to seek revenge not only against criminals who has ruined his family but also against corrupt, irrational law and society turning away from the truth. As a result, it brings about a tragedy where a normal citizen ends up turning into a criminal as well. Socrates said that “A law is a law, however undesirable it may be” unjust law is law as well. Laws which are enacted by humans and judged by humans can be applied unjustly to people. All people wonder if there will be fair law that can be fair to everyone. Living in the closure of such law, we often see cases where law is advantageously applied to those with power and even for criminals. As a result, many victims are falsely charged with wrongful accusations. Who will compensate victims created from irrational, unjust judgments? Fortunately, we have sometimes seen cases where victims are rescued by resisting such irrational legal decisions. In the above news article, a woman gained support from many people through facebook to rescue victims false accused and charged for 24 years to gain their freedoms. Because there are people who fight for justice like this, we can live inside the legal structure which can be irrational at times.

I came across this article about testing the reliability of child witnesses. The article acknowledges the well-known fact that young children are very suggestible, and that this causes a dilemma when children have to questioned by an adult who is trying to find out evidence in a case where the child is the only witness. A professor at Cornell has proposed that there should be a way of testing the suggestibility of a child witness and assigning a suggestibility rating.

This article relates to what happened in the “Witch Hunt” film where the parents were victims of a witch hunt and their children recanted their stories way after the intensity died down. Wouldn’t a test have been helpful in that situation?

Although this test addresses a problem in justice system, I still wonder about its feasibility and reception.  The test was conducted over a four-week period. This may be viewed as too long to establish a baseline and may be seen as just as contaminating. Asking questions about an unrelated scenario that’s being played out may bring in elements to confuse or weakens a child’s memory. But then, it may also serve as a test to how susceptible the child in question is. On another note, if a traumatic event really occurred, how closely should the scenario be allowed to mimic it without compromising it? But then again, coming that close to the actual event might help to show how much fidelity a child would show to events of that nature, even after being traumatized.

The link above is about how innocent people that are convicted of crimes who do end up being exonerated lose the lives they knew before prison.  Surprisingly, this story tells the story of Beverly Monroe, a middle class mother with a master’s degree was convicted of the murder of her “long time companion.” In spite of evidence pointing to a suicide, law enforcement told Beverly that she was a suspect and was charged and convicted for 22 years for murder. Luckily her daughter was a lawyer who found 7 years later that prosecutors withheld evidence that would have shown that she was innocent.

When she was exonerated, she lost everything she had before. This ties into the subjects of false convictions and stigma. From the moment someone is even charged with a crime they did not commit, their lives are changed.

This video also shows two other stories of two men, Larry Peterson and Thomas McGowen.  Larry Peterson was sentenced to life for a murder and sexual assault of a woman. He was finally freed from prison due to DNA tests that proved his innocent. He talks about how he was denied every chance at employment because exoneration does not erase the criminal record. This all but takes away the chances of exonerated people to find a job, obtain credit, or obtain what is necessary to continue a life.  Thomas McGowen was convicted for a burglary and rape that he did not commit. He served 22 years before being released from prison.

The end of this video exposes the harsh and sad truth that police and forensic scientists have manufactured physical evidence and prosecutors that know their witnesses are lying have pushed to convict innocent and falsely charged people.

In his essay “Underworlds and Underdogs” Daniel Czitron investigates the life of Tammany Hall member, Tim Sullivan. Tammany Hall is generally associated with coercing votes and the corrupt regime of Boss Tweed but there was much more to Tammany Hall and its members than shady activity.

Big Tim Sullivan was elected the New York State Senate in 1893 to represent the Bowery district. Tammany Hall and Big Tim organized weekend outings for citizens of the Bowery, a chance to escape crowded tenements and go out into the park. Most Bowery residents were given free tickets to the event. Throughout his career in the senate Big Tim worked to keep open popular urban amusements that could be enjoyed by all. Big Tim also started the tradition of feeding poor families Christmas dinner in 1894 and began to give away shoes and wool socks every February.

Tammany’s practice of forcing local constituents to vote was problematic for many because the outcome for national presidential elections was often determined by New York State. Big Tim was known to bail out men who had been convicted of election law violations and hiring gangs to police election polls. Big Tim was further accused of profiting from prostitution on the Lower East Side and serious gambling problems.

His familiarity with the underworld of New York City did not stop his commitment to clean up his district. Due to increased violence below 14th street Sullivan helped write The Sullivan Act which was the city’s first gun control law.

Despite the good he had done for the Bowery district and New York City Tim Sullivan was thought to be a chum to the underworld until his death. Sullivan’s involvement with Tammany and his association with criminal life made him a criminal by default in the eyes of many people. Although his situation wasn’t as serious as the people from Witch Hunt, who were wrongly accused, his believed criminality was something he struggled against daily.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-11/news/32619857_1_sexual-abuse-gary-schultz-face-charges-tim-curley

This article is written by Daniel Filler about the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal at Penn State. Jerry Sandusky was able to use his postion at the university’s football program and a non-profit organization he started to sexually abuse children for decades.  The scandal blew up in the middle of this past college football season and resulted in the trail and conviction of Sandusky.  This piece is a opinion editorial where Filler says “Over the past two decades, advocates, the media, and politicians have stoked public fears about sexual abuse. The resulting panic has had serious consequences.” This op-ed captures everything that we have been discussing in class in regards to moral panic, stigma, and the shortcomings of laws passed by our society. Filler sums up the failures we submit ourselves to by writing “Over the past 20 years, society has approached sex crimes with unbridled passion and anger. This emotional search for justice is entirely appropriate in particular cases; that is one purpose of sentencing. But when the same intense feelings become an engine for policy-making, they may undermine the crafting of effective laws.” We witnessed this same exact circumstance when we watched Witch Hunt in class on Wednesday. Filler also touches on the public shaming and ineffective responses to sexual crimes, “It has subjected all sexual offenders to greater stigma and, more importantly, has led to a complex array of laws that dramatically increase the costs of conviction even for less serious sexual offenses. In some states, a low-grade sex offender faces greater repercussions than a murderer.” I agree with much that Filler wrote in this article, but changing public opinion and policy in regards to sexual crimes is extremely dangerous to a politicians career in politics. What does everyone else think?

Andrew Conyers

In one of the readings assigned in class this week the “Outsiders” written by Howard S. Becker, Becker defines an outsider as people who break rules agreed upon by the majority of the group. Becker also states that rule breakers often perceive a person who enforces a rule as an outsider. I recently came across an article titled “Social Reaction (Labeling) Theory: Pros, Cons and Effects on Society” written by Shawn Cunningham.  Within the article Cunningham states that when a person is labeled as being a criminal by society; they are likely to accept this label as part of themselves. When a person views themselves as being a criminal they are more likely to continue to exhibit criminal behavior. Cunningham goes on to say that primary deviance begins with an initial criminal act, after which an individual might be labeled as a criminal or deviant person but does not accept this label. A criminal label is placed on an individual during the “degradation ceremony” in which the accused is labeled as a criminal.  Cunningham also states that Becker’s work focuses primarily on the way society reacts to people with “criminal” labels. Cunningham believes that Becker proposes that this label becomes a person’s “master status,” which means that this is a constant label, affecting and over-riding how other individuals view them. The status people use to identify and classify a person will always be that of a criminal. A person could have the label of a parent, employee or spouse but the primary and major status that will come to mind to other people and themselves is that of a criminal.  In the article Cunningham also inserts a YouTube video of a social psychology experiment by Sarah Lisenbe from Mississippi State University indicating social reactions labeling theory and the effects on society by demonstrating how individuals are less likely to break the rules of society with a look at conformity to gender roles. Within the experiment there are two glass doors that lead to the same area; one door is labeled “men only” and the other door is labeled “women only,” not wanting to break the rules of society both men and women make sure to go through the appropriate door, regardless of the fact that the door of the opposite sex is actually the closest to them. With this experiment Lisenbe illustrates how individuals are most likely to follow the rules of society, so that they do not risk the chance of being labeled deviant.

Article with video below:

http://andyouwannabeawriter.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/social-reaction-labeling-theory-pros-cons-and-effects-on-society/

This week in class we watched the movie “Witch hunt” and they showed all kind of cases with false convictions. These false convictions have never stopped and the rate just keeps going up. In an article from New York Times, a former New York police officer used a racial slur while bragging about falsely arresting a black man last year was sentenced in prison for violating the man’s civil rights. This police officer, who was white, was recorded before by his friend over the phone when he told him all about how he has falsely arrested a lot of people mainly because of their race. Mr. Daragjati, the police officer, was only sentenced to prison for nine months, which I believe is unfair. He sent so many people to prison that were sentenced for more than five years just because of his false arrests. Then there was this other article I read also from the New York Times, it was about how a woman from Australia has been accused of lying, convicted of murder and sent to prison. On August 17, 1980 an Australian wild dog, also known as a dingo, dragged a baby from a tent as her parents sat by the campfire. Her body was never found until this year in June. The mother of the baby, Lindy Chamberlain, spent nearly three decades in prison because no one would believe her. “This case has showed examples of poor forensic science, anxiety about evil mothers and suspicion of religiosity. The Chamberlain family is members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which was wrongly portrayed as an infant slaying cult.” There also have been rumors that Azaria, their daughter, meant “sacrifice in the wilderness, in Hebrew, not blessed of God”. About 76.8 percent of Australians said that Lindy was guilty and because of that the investigation did not go on so long. No one wanted to believe her that her baby has been dragged by a wild dog, until this year when a death certificate has been issued that stating that Azaria Chamberlain’s death was because of a dingo attack. Lindy Chamberlain has served in prison for almost three decades because no one wanted to believe her and because people thought she was unfit to be a real mother. This is another example of false conviction and also poor investigations once again.

In class the movie “Witch Hunt” was shown which demonstrated how a group of parents were falsely accused as child molesters. After years of imprisonment they were found innocent and had to start a new life. Some move to a different state because they couldn’t get a job in Bakersfield after all accusations. The children of the parents and the kids from the neighborhood who were pressured what to say carried a sense of guilt throught out the years. Those children now question the righteousness of the authority.  As citizens we are suppose to trust and depend on the legal system right? Unfortunately many citizens doubt the jurisdiction of America. Some members of the jurisdiction are not lead to the innocence of a person but rather to their own interest. Prosecutors for their own benefit look for convictions as a way to self-promote. When concurrent crimes happen like it did in Bakerfield, innocent people are declared guilty. In the aricle “5 jailed in ’95 killing  of cabby didn’t do it, federal inquiry says”  five people were arrested for the murder of cab driver Baithe Diop. According to the article Baithe Diop was murder in 1995, “a time when cabdrivers were being attacked regularly in the city with nearly 70 drivers killed in 1993 and 1994”.  It just so happened that five people who declare themselves innocent were convicted, now years later after two trials due to evidence are found to be innocent. During the first trial, the police and prosecutors believed the four men ( one was release of charges) plotted Diop murder to distract the authority from the $50,000 worth of cocaine taken from Diop’s passenger. The jurors of the trial believed the conclusion of the police and prosecutors. In the second trial two more people were convicted for Diop’s murder, Eric Glisson who was one of them wrote a letter to a prosecutor but landed on the hands of the investigator, John O’Malley. In the letter Glisson states that he overheard Diop’s murder was done by two gang members from the Bronx. In both the Bakersfield and Diop case, defendents were given a long sentences. This puts in question the power of the prosecutors, which is only being questioned by the citizens and not the authorities.  In both cases ( Bakersfield and Diop), no prosecutors were held accountable for their actions. If the government is watching the citizens who is watching the government (authorities)?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48484764/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

Today in class we spoke about the idea of a moral panic and the drastic effect that situations that cause it have on our society. The excerpt that we were assigned to read gave us an in-depth analysis of where the idea of a moral panic could’ve began. This reading involved the increasing spread of crimes that involve theft and violence, but that article focusing on this idea of “mugging.” Government officials labeled these crimes and set fire to a virtually new phenomenon in Great Britain that had pre-existed in the US. The reason why “mugging” became a moral panic was because at the time it was introduced it seemed like it couldn’t be contained.  In 1999. Thirteen years ago, two gunmen entered Columbine High School and opened fire on everyone including students and teachers. There was no obvious reason why such an act occurred except for the fact that these criminals were vigilantes and believed that opening fire at a high school was a mission that they had to accomplish. The effect that this crime had on the US was beyond measurable. Schools around the nation had increased the amount of security, people weren’t sending their children to school and above all this was an act that seemed spontaneous and couldn’t be contained. Government officials had no motive as to what causes such an act to occur and people wanted answers. Overall this shooting caused a moral panic as to how can such an act be regulated and was there anyway for people to prevent such acts from occurring? A moral panic occurs when people don’t feel safe in their own neighborhoods or even in the confinement of their own home. This situation is different if a person assumes the risk of visiting a violence priven place and expects not to see any damaging imagery, but if a person is the in the confinement of their own neighborhood, their safe haven and they don’t consider themselves safe then this results in a moral panic. The victims of the columbine shooting were in the confinement of their own public high school, a relatively safe place where the only guns that are visible are in the holsters of well-trained police officials. For them to be stricken by such a tragedy has proven to be a keen and very real example of a moral panic.

http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=9966

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/08/justice/virginia-tech-incident/index.html

http://history1900s.about.com/od/famouscrimesscandals/a/columbine.htm