Criminal

How far have we really come?

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

A fellow student passed this article along to me. It briefly outlines a horrific miscarriage of justice from 1944. A 14 year old boy was sentenced to death for allegedly killing two white girls; the young boy was black. Advocates for this case have pushed for its re-opening so as to exonerate the name of this young boy. The attorneys working on this case, according to the article, have discovered substantial evidence pointing to the innocence of this young man.

In light of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I really wonder if we, as a society, have come all that far from the days of MLK. Certainly the standards for sentencing individuals to death have improved (you can no longer sentence a mentally disabled person to death nor a child under the age of 18), but have we come much farther than that?

Articles such as this one really make me question, more than I usually do, what our criminal justice system stands for. If the system were truly interested in seeking justice the argument certainly could be made that cases such as this one would be reviewed without such hesitation and stagnation. Why wouldn’t South Carolina want to uncover the truth and give the young boy’s remaining family members some closure and vindication of his innocence? Are they so scared of facing their past wrongs that they are unwilling to do what is right? Even if the evidence continues to point to the boy’s guilt after all this time, what is the harm in re-examining the case?

The Innocence Project has time and again proved many convictions contain faults. Primarily, wrongful convictions rested on eyewitness testimony, unvalidated or improper forensics, false confessions or admissions, or informants or snitches.

It is no longer a secret that mistakes can be and are made. Why, then, do governments continually try to turn a blind eye to cases such as this one?

 

 

The Problem of Over Criminalization in America

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

The Heritage Foundation  defines over criminalization as “the trend to use the criminal law rather than the civil law to solve every problem, to punish every mistake, and to compel compliance with regulatory objectives.” In today’s society, most states have laws on the books for just about anything you could think of.   Criminalizing every behavior a person can engage in is said to chill the effects that punishing criminal behavior was originally intended to produce. The Heritage Foundation issued a report entitled “Without Intent: How Congress Is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law.” For more information, see their webpage on the topic.  In sum, this article details that Congress continues to create new crimes through legislation that do not possess the characteristics of what is typically referred to as a “crime.” Here are some of the brief findings outlined in this article:

” A core principle of the American system of justice is that no one should be subjected to criminal punishment for conduct that he did not know was illegal or otherwise wrongful. This principle of fair notice, which has been a cornerstone of our criminal justice system since the nation’s founding, is embodied in the requirement that, with rare exceptions, the government must prove the defendant acted with mens rea—a “guilty mind”—before subjecting him to criminal punishment. Members of the 109th Congress (2005–2006) proposed 446 criminal offenses that did not involve violence, firearms, drugs and drug trafficking, pornography, or immigration violations. Of these 446 proposed non-violent criminal offenses, 57 percent lacked an adequate mens rea requirement. Worse, during the 109th Congress, 23 new criminal offenses that lack an adequate mens rea requirement were enacted into law.” This quote can be found here.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers notes that there are over 4,450 crimes throughout the Federal criminal code. Americans are expected to know and understand the laws so they can conform their behavior to them. Ignorance to the law is said to not be a defense to criminal conduct. However, can our society really expect the average citizen to be fully informed of what conduct is punishable when there are that many offenses?

For more examples of this problem, see this article.

 

“Ordinary Injustice”

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

The book “Ordinary Injustice” was assigned by one of my professors. As a disclaimer, the author is a lawyer, but only practiced for a short time. She then spent eight years researching, and ultimately wrote this book. She focuses on several specific locations, but the themes that she emphasizes are derived from problems the criminal justice system as a whole suffers from. These include under funding, over and under criminalization, and corrupt or biased judges, to name a few. The overall message of the book, however, made evident through the situations she focused on, is this: many of the problems the criminal justice system faces often go unnoticed because they are so common place.

In her introduction, Amy Bach sets forth several conceptions of “ordinary injustice.” First, “Ordinary injustice results when a community of legal professionals becomes so accustomed to a pattern of lapses that they can no longer see their role in them” (p.3). Second, “Ordinary injustice seems to occur in a blind spot” (p.4). Third, “ordinary injustice flourishes in the shadows where these deals are cut and decisions are made” (p.7). Fourth, “Ordinary injustice is virtually always rooted in an incomplete story” (p.8). Fifth, “ordinary injustice cannot be explained away by any one variable” (p.9).

It is no secret that the criminal justice system does have its fair share of problems. For instance, scholars who study the system constantly point to the lack of indigent defense as one of the main problems within the system. Some scholars analogize that the criminal justice system is a triangle in nature- that is, the judge rules over both the defense attorney and prosecutor. If this balance/hierarchy is not maintained, and the three separate roles of these parties lose their distinctive shape, the system begins to collapse.

For instance, in one chapter of “Ordinary Injustice” Bach focused on one severe instance of judicial misconduct. There, the judge set exorbitantly high bail amounts, would not always assign a lawyer to defendants, and in many instances would enter pleas for defendants who were not present in the courtroom. However, in this situation, the prosecutor and defense attorneys were complacent with the judge’s actions. While there is a whole separate argument to be made whether attorneys legitimately have the option to report instances of misconduct (despite their professional obligations to do so), the point is the judge’s misconduct continued for years without anyone questioning whether he was following the law.

The overall point is from an outsider’s perspective the system may appear to function and be fair. Few tend to question the system and how it operates. Complacency seems to plague the system to a high degree. Those who want to change the system face high levels of resistance. Change in this area does occur, but at a painfully slow rate.

http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Injustice-America-Holds-Court/dp/0805092277

“Ban the Box” Movement

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

“Ban the Box” is a national movement striving to remove the “box” from job applications. Anyone who has filled out a job application in recent years will have noticed the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” or some derivation thereof, accompanied by a box to check, either yes or no. This question, to most, is not a source of stress or anxiety. But, for the large majority of the American population that has a criminal conviction, this question signals to job applicants that their application will not be considered.

Criminal convictions carry a heavy stigma that is difficult to overcome, especially in the context of employment. The purpose of the “Ban the Box” movement is to allow job applicants with criminal convictions the opportunity to be considered for a job without the stigma of their conviction inhibiting their chances. Banning the box allows applicants with criminal convictions the chance to get their foot in the door and have a better chance of getting an interview. The ban does not guarantee a job to an applicant with a conviction history. The ban also does not, depending on its specific language, prohibit an employer from asking about an applicant’s conviction history. The goal is to allow employers to consider applicants without their conviction status being the focus of the employer’s decision.

The logic of eliminating the initial question on job applications is simple; it is illogical to screen out hundreds of thousands of qualified job applicants from potential jobs due to their past criminal conviction. Time and time again, individuals that are qualified or over-qualified, are not considered or asked to interview because of their conviction.

According to an article by the NELP (National Employment Law Project), nine states, Colorado, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Minnesota and Hawaii along with 50 local municipalities have passed ordinances banning the box from job applications. Recently, Target announced their intentions to eliminate this dreaded question from their job application.

In today’s society, recidivism and the “revolving door” of the criminal justice system are ever growing problems. Banning the box is one measure that can begin to move us in the right direction of allowing applicants with convictions the opportunity to find jobs.

There is a local Syracuse, New York, and New York State movement to “Ban the Box,” but, both are still working to gain traction.

For more information on this topic, check out this informational PDF or any of the links below.

–Minnesota

–Maryland

–Target Corporation

Sunday Funday: “Shawshank” Star Tim Robbins Teaches Acting in Prison

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Sunday Funday: “Shawshank” Star Tim Robbins Teaches Acting in Prison

Several weeks ago, CBS News Sunday Morning ran a story about a prison acting program run by actor Tim Robbins, best known for his role as a prisoner in The Shawshank Redemption. 

Here is an excerpt from the story:

The inmates at this medium security prison in Norco, Calif., are serving time for crimes ranging from possession of marijuana to murder.

One of their coaches is Academy Award-winning actor Tim Robbins.

“It creates this place, particularly important in prison, where people can step outside of what’s expected of them and try to explore new emotions, create new realities, create new truths for themselves,” Robbins said.

The project, now in its seventh year, is funded by The Actors’ Gang, which Robbins and some acting friends founded in 1981.

For more public policy related video/audio, be sure to check out the SLACE Archive.