Crime

The commercial vices are gambling, prostitution, and drugs. The appeals of the commercial vices are so strong and widespread that attempts to prohibit them in western countries have always failed. The evils of these vices are threefold: Those who practice them suffer, the criminals who sell them prosper, and the enforcement organizations are expensive, unsuccessful, and often corrupt. Two commercial vices have been accepted as unstoppable, but there evils have been minimized by legalization and regulation.

These are the particular drug, alcohol, and gambling. Ethyl alcohol, the drug in beer, whiskey, and wine does more harm is causing accidents, overdose deaths, job failures, broken homes, and violence than all other drugs combined. The United States attempted to prohibit alcohol and failed. The Mafia made its money by bootlegging alcohol. The gangsters of the twenties and thiries were in the alcohol business just as the drug peddlers of today are in the drug business. Both settled trade disputes with gun fire.

When lcohol prohibition was repealed and sale by licensed dealers was instituted, the Mafia went out of the liquor business and the revenue agents assigned to stop the illegal business went out of business too. The quality of regulated liquor became assured and taxed, not high enough to motivate bootlegging, became a source of public revenue. Consumption of legal alcohol became only slightly greater than the consumption of illegal alcohol had been. If we follow the alcohol example with all other drugs, the benefits will obtain.

Much more than that, the temptation of the forbidden fruits will disappear. The jailing of petty drug pushers will stop, together with their training as future serious criminals in the crime schools which are jails. If we transfer the huge sums wasted on efforts and on punishment to serious education and rehabilitation programs, the drug problem will retreat to the trivial level it was fifty years ago. At one time all but private gambling at home was illegal. So the Mafia ran the numbers rackets and secret games and the bookmaking where law biding citizens did their unstoppable gambling.

Now governments run lotteries and license and supervise casinos so the gangsters are largely out, cheating in minimal, and governments earn revenue instead of paying police. Prostitution is an even more emotional problem. Addiction to sex is genetic, permanent, and deprivation has many more penalties. Prostitution is the worlds oldest profession. Here, again, legalization and regulation in Nevada was already eliminated the pimps and gangsters and reduce the police force.

With medical examinations and licensing of the practitioners, there will be a radical reduction in the spread of venerel diseases, including aids. For those already diseased there can be a matching of buyer and seller by coding there license cards. In conclusion, the government will take any law they can’t enforce and turn it around in order to make and save money. But they are also making less jobs for the police and other law enforcement agencies. I believe that in the end this way of doing things will more than likely hurt us overall.

Organized Crime has for nearly one hundred years held an unseen control over the United States. Running both illegal and legal businesses they have captivated the lives of the country. Here is an overview of the history of this power that knows everything and everyone that has power or wishes to rise to power.

The beginning of organized crime goes back to the 13th century. The Mafia was formed in Sicily to help farmers from being terrorized by French and Spanish looters (Waller, p.16). It was not until the 19th century that the Mafia began to show up in cities like New York and New Orleans. By World War I, every major city had powerful local gangs, not necessarily a Mafia group.

The Mafia’s discipline held all of the gangs together. The Mafia had only two major objections dealing with crime. There was to be no drug dealers in the Mafia and prostitiution was not allowed. The cheif weapons of the Mafia were death threats and the code of omerta'(the code of silence). When omerta’ was broken, the police cleaned up the mess while the rival gang took over.

Prohibition brought the birth of organized crime to the United States. Prohibition was ratified on January 29, 1919 but didn’t take hold until 1920 (Compton’s,p.1). Prohibition, which was the 18th Amendment of the Constitution, made it illegal to buy, sell, or transport alcoholic beverages. It also opened a new market for illegal booze to those who would risk it. Prohibition also proved to be filled with murder and corruption. Men like Lucky Luciano, Dutch Schultz, Al Capone, Meyer Lansky, and Vito Genovese got started during this time.

Prohibition began with the sale of foreign booze that was smuggled into the country. After several raids and many thousands of dollars lost, the mob turned to more producing of their own illegal alcohol. Bootlegged whiskey was known as “white lightning” (Waller,p.29). Illegal alcohol was sold two ways: you could put it in bottles or it was sent to the taverns in tin cans.

The highly violent city of Chicago had been divided up into five different turf areas for bootleggers. This agreement would have worked out except that one major bootlegger was excluded from the deal. The O’ Donnell brothers had controlled the southern most area of Chicago but had not been allowed to join the meeting. This group of brothers eventually met their match after many years of war.

The city of Chicago had been split up between six gangs. It was an agreement over areas of control. The noth side of Chicago was divided between Al Capone and Dion O’Banion. O’Banion was to control the beer while Capone controlled the hard liquor. This eventually led to the death of O’Banion. The south side of the city was ran by the Genna family. The west side was controlled by the Valley Gang while the southwest side was ran by the Saltis-McErlane Gang. To the far south side the Ragen’s Colts controlled the bootlegging industry (Waller,p.31).

During this time, a new weapon came into play. The Thompson submachine gun, also known as the tommy gun or chopper, became a major factor in criminal activity. This machine gun also became known as the Chicago violin because of its heavy use in the city.

It was a sad day for several organized gangs when Prohibition was repealed. On December 5, 1933 the 21st Amendment was passed making it legal to buy, sell, and transport alcoholic beverages. The fourteen years of Prohibition had made the mob and Mafia grow powerful and rich.

One of the most famous mobsters of all time was Al Capone. Born Alphonse Capone in Brooklyn, New York, he was the son of immigrants from Naples, Italy (Waller, p.27). Although Capone was of Italian descent, he was never a member of the Mafia.

As a teenager Al Capone was involved with crime. His first crime job was as a bouncer in a mob bar called Harvard Inn (Waller, p.27). In 1918, Capone married a woman of Irish background. Then in the early part of 1919, Al Capone moved to Chicago with John Torrio to work for Torrio’s uncle.

Once Capone got his bootlegging business running he came in contact with his first rival, Dion O’Banion. After several problems with the Chicago police, Capone moved to a near by town of Cicero, Illinois (Waller, p.32). There Capone rigged elections to control local politicians.

Capone quickly rose to power in the midwest. He controlled most of the criminal activities the happened outside New York. Capone even made friends with the head of the New York Mafia, Lucky Luciano. Together they attempted to calm the blood shed and secretly increase the underworld’s power. By the age of 26, Al Capone managed over 1000 employees with a pay roll of more than $300,000 a week (Compton’s, p.1).

One of the largest incidents that Al Capone was tied to was that of the mass slayings of six mobsters on Febuary 14, 1929. This notorious even became known as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre (Compton’s, p.1). Although Capone was suspected of this crime, he was in Florida at the time of the killings. He later told police that he had over 300 witnesses to his story but he was still considered the main suspect.

Unfortunately for Capone, his days of living the high life were headed down hill. A man by the name of Eliot Ness, who headed the Special Investigation Squad, went after Capone looking for any reason to put him behind bars. Eliot Ness and his men were dubbed “The Untouchables” for their resistance to accept bribes or threats from the mob (Jacobs,p.44).

Capone’s time in the sun ran out on March 13, 1931 when he was indicted for tax evasion. Capone received a quick trial and was found guilty on October 17, 1931. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison, $50,000 in fines, and $30,000 for court costs (Jacobs, p. 50).

Al Capone was sent to Atlanta Federal Penitentiary on May 4, 1932. While there, a rumor of a maximum security prison being built off the coast of California surfaced. It was said that this prison was to house the most infamous criminals and the most deadly killers. In August of 1934, Al Capone was moved to the “Rock” (Jacobs, p. 52). Known as the “Rock”, Alcatraz Island was soon to be the most famous prison ever to be built.

Capone’s days of happiness were far gone when in Febuary of 1938 he had began to show symptoms of advanced syphillitic disorder (Jacobs,p.52). Upon hearing the seriousness of his condition in the prison infirmary, Capone confessed his sins to a priest. Capone was also dubbed no longer able to run his operations back in Chicago.

Al Capone left Alcatraz on January 6, 1939 and was transfered to a prison near Los Angeles (Jacobs,p.52). There he received an operation to attempt to cure his illness. On November 16, 1939 Al Capone was released on good behavior. He lived the remainder of his life in seclusion fearing being hunted by fellow mobsters.

Al Capone died January 25, 1947 of a brain hemorrage. He was burried in Chicago’s Mount Olivet Cemetery without full rites of the Catholic church. Capone died a penniless man (Jacobs, p. 53).

Another man who started his rise to power during the Prohibition era and also later controlled the national network of organized crime was Lucky Luciano. Luciano’s birth name was Salvatore Luciana but went by such names as Charlie Lucky, Charles Luciano, and Charles Ross (Waller, p. 24). He moved to the United States in 1904. Luciano became a member of the Mafia as soon as his late teens. He never liked publicity and never lost his temper.

Lucky Luciano was the right hand man for Giuseppe Masceria, also known as Joe the Boss. Luciano eventually wanted his turn at power so he had Masceria murdered. With the death of Masceria and the respect Luciano received from the killing, he soon became the head of the Masceria crime family. Soon Lucky Luciano planned the murder of all the Moustache Petes, the old time Mafia bosses (Waller, p. 51).

With the old leaders dead and the new ones in place, Luciano was crowned the “Boss of Bosses” without his own wanting (Jacobs, p. 70). Also during this time, the formation of an organization known as the Syndicate was happening. Luciano had attempted to gain control of the political figures but had to deal with a group of investigators trying to tie him with organized crime.

In an effort to get the investigation team off his back, Luciano came up with a plan. New York’s governor, Franklin Roosevelt, was running for president and needed the primary votes of his own state. To do so he must win the votes of Tammany Hall which was controlled by Luciano and his associates. Roosevelt had agreed to get the investigator off Luciano’s back for the votes but the deal turned bad (Jacobs, p. 72).

As soon as Roosevelt had secured his winning of New York, he immediately turned against the mobsters to win a public appeal. Luciano soon afterwards became public enemy number one. Now he was in the public eye which was against his own wishes. Luciano then redirected his criminal activities to less violent measures.

The mob was soon highly involved with gambling, both legal and illegal. Luciano saw an untapped market in the Caribbean and Cuba where he set up casinos. Until he was ran out of Cuba by a new head of power, Fidel Castro, Luciano was without many troubles (Jacobs, p. 74). All the while, Special Procecuter Dewey continued to try to tie Luciano with the Syndicate.

Although Mafia law refused it, Luciano was quickly being identified as having a part in many of New York’s prostitution cases. In an attempt to get witnesses against Luciano, an offer was made to all criminals that they would receive their freedom if they would testify against Lucky Luciano (Jacobs, p. 75). Soon after, a Grand Jury indicted Luciano for heading a prostitution and criminal ring. Luciano fled to his resort in Hot Springs, Arkansas where he felt he would be safe.

Luciano was eventually picked up by federal marshals but the sheriff of Hot Springs refused to extradict him (Jacobs, p. 75). The sheriff was forced to give Luciano up and he arrived in New York to face 90 counts including being involved with compulsory prostitution. Lucky Luciano had the chance to face up to 1950 years in prison if convicted (Jacobs, p. 75).

There were 68 witnesses against Luciano and their testimony took over three weeks. Upon being questioned at his trial, Lucky Luciano proved himself to be liar. On June 7, 1936 Luciano was found guilty on all counts. Being an immigrant, Luciano was exiled back to his native country of Sicily in 1946 (Jacobs, p. 78).

Lucky Luciano’s luck had ran out. His old time partner Vito Genovese wanted Lucky gone but not killed by his men. Instead Genovese set Luciano up for a huge drug bust by the Sicilian police. The presure of knowing of Genovese’s plan and his problems by the Italian National Police caused Lucky Luciano to have a fatal heart attack on January 25, 1962 (Jacobs, p. 78). An era of bootleging mobsters had drawn to an end.

During World War II, the United States were under mob rule. Many gambling outfits were started to help ease the pain of loved ones going to war. Besided, the police were not effective since many of the best police were fighting Germany. Heroin was rapidly imported from Europe at this time (Waller, p. 65). Vito Genovese was even a close friend of Italy’s dictator, Benito Mussolini.

As a huge way to make money, the mob controlled the black market. They sold everything from blankets to radios. They even sold illegal alcohol because so much was needed for the war (Waller, p. 66). The mob was very thankful for the war because while men were fighting, the mob grew rich.

Also during this time, there was a large expansion of the mob. A nation wide network was developed called the Syndicate. The mob bosses were spread from California to Florida instead of mainly being around New York. They started peddling drugs, mainly herion, against Mafia law. Through their expansion, the head of the F.B.I., J. Edgar Hoover, denied the existance of a coast to coast criminal organization (Waller,p.87). Also the mob began to move their casinos just miles off the coast of the United States to avoid problems with the police.

In 1960 John F. Kennedy was elected president. He appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy as Attorney General. Robert Kennedy then quadrupled the number of Justice Department people assigned to fight organized crime (Waller, p. 91). This was the beginning of a down fall for many of America’s most notorious mobsters.

Robert Kennedy received his big break when a man who was scared for his life in prison decided to become a government witness against organized crime. This man, Joe Valachi, soon after had a $100,000 bounty on his head to any mobster able top take him out (Waller, p. 93). Joe Valachi had been involved with the mob for several years and knew enough to put many people away for life.

Between the years of 1960 and 1963, more members of the mob from the New York\New Jersey area went to jail than in the thirty years before then(Waller,p.94). Robert Kennedy also went out to get men like Jimmy Hoffa who were involved with the mob through professional organizations like unions. Jimmy Hoffa was truely involved with the mob and his death was the cause of his own stupidity.

Jimmy Hoffa was sent to jail for misusing union pension funds that were developed for the use of the Mafia. He was released from prison on a pardon from President Nixon and wished to return to being the head of the Teamsters Union. This was not possible so he began to cause problems. Hoffa, while in prison, disrespected a mobster by the name of Tony Provenzano, known as Tony Pro, by hitting him in front of inmates. This proved to be the beginning of the end of Jimmy Hoffa.

When Hoffa wasn’t allowed to return to power he made a serious threat to the mob. He said, “Before I lose the union… I’ll go to the Grand Jury” (Hoffman,p.207). Very soon after that Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno, the boss of the Genovese crime family, gave the orders to have Hoffa killed. The Deroit mob had told Hoffa to cool it but he kept on coming (Demaris,p.296). As Tony Pro had promised, Jimmy Hoffa was going to disappear.

The Detroit mob had to dispose of Jimmy Hoffa quickly before he rose too many questions they didn’t want to answer. One very large one was about the fact that money from the Teamsters pension fund had helped build Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas. At one time it was even stated that Jimmy wouldn’t be running anywhere because he would soon be dead (Hoffman, p. 216).

On July 29, Donald Frankos got furlough from prison and was to return on August 1, 1975. Being in prison was a perfect alibi so he was used as a hit man in Jimmy Hoffa’s disappearance and death. The others men involved in the murder were John Sullivan, Jimmy Coonan, Salvatore (Sally Bugs) Briguglio, and Chuckie O’Brien who was Jimmy Hoffa’s adopted son. On July 30, 1975, Chuckie O’Brien and Sally Bugs met Hoffa at the Red Fox in the Bloomfield Township and that was the last time Jimmy Hoffa was seen alive.

Jimmy Hoffa was escorted to a house up in the mountains where his killers were waiting. Donald Frankos and Jimmy Coonan were poised and shot Jimmy Hoffa on sight. Hoffa was then carried downstairs and his body was dismembered. Before Hoffa’s head was distroyed, Frankos took a lock and gave it Coonan as a good luck charm. Originally they had planned to take the body to Central Sanitation Services, a garbage disposal company, to be crushed in old cars (Hoffman, p. 221). When suspition arose of there wereabouts of Hoffa’s body the sanitation company refused to keep the body.

In December of 1975, Joe Sullivan moved the remains of James Hoffa in oil drums from Michigan to New Jersey (Hoffman, p. 224). There Hoffa’s body was placed in the Meadowlands in plastic bags, the home of the Giants (Hoffman, p. 225). There was construction being done on the stadium by mob ran companies so it left an easy disposal of Hoffa’s body. Donald Frankos was paid $60,000, Coonan and John Sullivan were each paid $55,000, and Joe Sullivan was paid $30,000 for burying the body. Maybe in the future this can be shown to be a solid fact instead of several men’s stoties.

Organized crime in America has evolved over this century. It now deals more with legal businesses than ever before. There are still killings but with a large crackdown on organized crime there is a new sense of panic. There is no knowing how many of the businesses we work for are owned by the mob and we may never know. I do not believe that any one person could comprehend the vast empire of organized crime in our country.

Traditionally, there has been little research on or interest in the impact of female crime in modern society. In addition, juvenile crime rates are on the rise, which combine for a void of research or information on female juvenile offenders. In general, crime rates for women offenders have risen since the 1990’s. Increasing numbers of young women are also offending at higher rates. In a 1996 U. S. Department of Justice Report, the number of arrests of young women had doubled between 1989 and 1993. Twenty percent of all juvenile arrests were committed by girls, an increase of 87 percent.

However, according to The National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools, males are far more likely to admit to criminal involvement than are females. For example, 12 percent of males and 4 percent of females reported carrying a hidden weapon other than a pocketknife in the past year (Wilson, p. 150). There are several theories for this rise in crime proposed by modern feminists, including that the introduction of women into traditional male roles prompted women to commit increasingly dangerous and violent crimes. However, this paper will rely on Meda Chesney-Lind’s theories from The Female Offender.

First, Chesney-Lind points out that research on female offenders in general is lacking, and that victimization plays a key role in the offending of women. “Responses must address a world that has been unfair to women and especially those of color and poverty. ” (The Female Offender). She also stresses that therapy and rehabilitation programming should be gender specific. Chesney-Lind believes that women are faced with special issues, including the prevalence of abuse that female offenders endure.

The American Correctional Association found that A) 61. ercent of female inmates were physically abused B) 50 percent were physically abused 11 times or more C) 54. 3 were sexually abused, and D) 33 percent were sexually abused 11 times or more. This environment creates a group of young women that are running away from home and breaking curfew to escape the abuse in the home. Unfortunately, these young women are then punished by the juvenile justice system for escaping this harmful situation. Since 1985, status offenses of young women have risen by 18 percent and curfew by 83 percent (FBI, 1995).

These same young women are often placed in treatment facilities, only to escape shortly before they are to be released, to avoid returning to the abuse. Women may also turn to gangs as a surrogate family, only to engage in ever increasing levels of dangerous crime. This lifestyle often leads to substance abuse, and girls and boys use drugs for different reasons. Women are most likely to use drugs as an escape or self-medication. What are the problems facing the treatment of female juveniles? First, treatment have been develop and implemented using the same techniques for both men and women.

This type of general approach does not take into consideration the different responses of men and women. Women may need more emotional support and therapy due to years of abuse, as opposed to the need for discipline and structure that men might need. Women may need time to form a bond with a male staff member that is not seen as an abuser or as a sexual target. Sexuality is an important component of gender specific treatment programs. Young women must address pregnancy, STD’s, birth control, and normal sexuality.

It is vital to help these young women understand that they have the right to say no to sexual relations, yet it can be a healthy part of a loving relationship. Gender specific programs should address a variety of other issues, including anger management, substance abuse, vocational/life skills, and overall self esteem. Although Chesney-Lind theorizes that young women face unique hardships before entering the juvenile justice system, they still must be held accountable for their crimes. The Restorative Justice Model is an example of treatment/responsibility that allows young women to make strides in their life.

This model combines the offender, victim, and the community. This gives the offenders (both male and female) a chance to address the harm they have caused. Restitution, victim apology, and mediation are all examples of strategies used in restorative justice. This allows for the verbal expression that is so important is gender specific treatment programs. However, most programs fail for young women because the importance of relationships is ignored. The same approaches cannot be used for both women and men. The need for a strong emotional bond is often overlooked in the pursuit of punishment .

Accordion Crimes is a difficult book to place in a single time period because the story takes place over about 100 years, originating in a small Sicilian village, but the main setting and focus is the United States. The various settings introduced in the book influenced the characters in various ways, but one instance of influence was great enough to cause his death. The accordion maker was literally ruled over by his setting. The setting around him was one of oppression that worked against him because he was Sicilian.

The accordion maker saw the approaching men with searing clarity, the loose hread on a coat, mud-spattered trouser legs, a logging chain in a big hand, the red shine of the engorged faces, a man with one blue eye and one yellow eye. Even then he hoped to be saved. He was innocent! Pinse held his revolver loosely in his hand, had lost his staff in the rush up the stairs, so crowded it had been, looked at the Sicilians knotted in the corner, their wicked eyes glittering, some of them pleading and praying – the cowards! He thought of the rat king, fired. Others fired.

A barrage of bullets and shot of every caliber and weight tore the Sicilians. The accordion maker reared twice and fell back. A character that has a great deal of intrigue is the accordion maker. The most interesting fact of this character is that he has no name, only an occupation. This is symbolic of all the millions of faceless immigrants that came to America in search of their dreams, but very few found them waiting, much less at all. … He had his theory, his idea of the fine instrument; with the proof of this one, he planned to make his fortune in La Merica.

The accordion maker himself was a large man, but more sensitive that most like him. He despised working through problems and simply let his wife handle them when she could. Once in La Merica, the accordion maker had to deal with squalid living conditions, but when one man wanted an accordion like the one he had made for himself, the accordion maker readily agreed. Despite that squalid living conditions, the accordion maker still had high hopes, … He was fortunate to have the room – many slept in the streets and docks and every morning lifeless forms were carried away, throats slit and pockets turned inside out, even young children.

All around him ere men who had to piss in their nettles. The accordion maker is a sort of introduction to the rest of the characters in the story in that they all live lower-middle to lower class lifestyles, with barely any income, and one finds that there is no epiphany or catharsis for the character, sometimes simply because you have the feeling he is ignorant of the truth, other times he dies before any resolution can be reached. One must remember that Accordion Crimes is a group of short stories that are bound together by an old accordion, with no character overlapping into two stories.

The plot of Accordion Crimes is a difficult one to describe as it is rather a collection of short stories and there is only one thing constant in every story, which is the accordion. Therefore, I have decided to write not of the overlying story, but of the journey of the accordion. The story begins with a Sicilian accordion maker and his dream of making a fortune in La Merica. All he had is a green, two-row button accordion and some money. He takes his son, Silvano, with him so that there might be enough money for them to eat decently.

The accordion maker ends up in the worst of onditions along with having his pockets as good as empty, almost makes some money by selling an accordion, but is killed with 10 other innocent Italians by a lynch mob, and the accordion is stolen by a black dockworker who goes down the Mississippi and sells the accordion to a Mr. Smith who owns a lumber shop in North Dakota for some food money. The accordion is bought from the now late Mr. Smith by Hans Beutle, who, along with Ludwig Messermacher and William Loats, founded the town of Prank with their farms.

Soon after, their children began to row up and some married and some changed their names because of the difficulty of having a foreign name. The town prospered and Beutle took his money and bought a better accordion and gave the old two-row to Messermacher, but not before half of their families died of infinite causes ranging from mysterious diseases to rape to insanity to catching parachuting Japanese bombs to having goat glands transplanted so as to increase libido at around age 60 (Hans Beutle’s fate).

Messermacher puts the accordion in the bottom of a trunk and moves to Coma, Texas to grow cotton after losing everything in the stock market rash. Soon, the accordion makes its way to a barber shop window where it is bought by a young Mexican boy named Abelardo who goes on to have four children, three of which learn to play the accordion, while the fourth died at war. The daughter, Felida, ran away from home at 17 and became one of the best folk accordionists ever.

Chris loved to play the accordion but was killed in a courtroom by a furious father-in-law after being arrested for dope smuggling. Years preceding his death, Abelardo hid 12 thousand dollars inside the accordion. Abelardo died of a spider bite that made him delirious and he played ike a madman on the accordion for the last 20 seconds of his life. Baby came to own the green accordion, but left it on the floor of a cab and couldn’t remember anything about the cab. The accordion was found by a man named Charles Gagnon who was abandoned during his childhood and grew up in an orphanage.

After some time in the service, he returned to his hometown of Random. Not finding anything of his parents he meets an old friend from the orphanage, Wilf. He eventually gets a house and makes a three man band with Wilf and his wife, Emma, whom Charles secretly lusts after. One day, Charles mysteriously looses all use of his legs a couple months after Wilf died in a horrendous truck accident.

At a wedding that Emma gets Charles to go to, he meets Delphine, who takes him to a statue of St. Jude in the middle of nowhere that supposedly has healing powers. Almost immediately, Charles is returned the use of his legs, and after careful consideration, kills himself, and his accordion is sold to a place called The Little Boy Blue Pawnshop to pay for the gravemarker with his name and lifespan that is destroyed in a plane crash 10 years later. The accordion is hen bought by Ivar Gasmann who collects antiques and has a little store in a town called Old Glory where he puts it for sale.

Dick Cude buys the accordion for the daughter of Conrad Gasmann, Ivar’s brother. The daughter’s name is Vela and had the unfortunate accident of having her arms severed just below the elbow by a flying piece of sheet metal, and after she comes home, finds solace in Lawrence Welk for a while. After receiving the Accordion and the hundred or so tapes that Dick had, she is mortified and hates them all, and so they are thrown away, accordion and all.

The accordion is rescued from the dump truck by he drivers, who end up pitching it out the window anyway, and the accordion is then found by some kids who pull out one of the thousand dollar bills, are tricked into thinking it is a one dollar bill by the old lady at the soda/gas stand, and buy a few sodas with it. The Accordion Crimes was a fantastic book and I enjoyed reading it immensely because of the detail and amount of pictorial usage used all throughout the novel. Although there were only words in the book, at some points it was almost as if I was looking through a small mirror to the world in which all these things took place.

I was also thoroughly impressed at the style Proulx uses in describing the disasters that befall the characters, as if they aren’t important. There were times that I had to double check a page to see if a certain character actually did die, which brings us to where I believed the book was lacking. I sometimes had the feeling that everything had been said and done, but the truth of the action was still in the obscured mind of the author, and I could not comprehend what was going on. I must admit though, that this in its entirety did actually add to the novel as the whole entire story wasn’t old by the author.

A good deal of it is written by the reader. Another criticization of the book would easily be about the gloom of the entire thing. Many stories about immigrants in the 20th century tend to be uplifting, but not Proulx’s. If one may criticize Accordion Crimes ever so milidly, it is only for its relentless existential bleakness. Theme was an element that the book seemed to lack as a whole, unless you consider possibly that the accordion represents how we have no control over our lives, but how other people react to us decides our path.

Theodore “Ted” Bundy was something of a celebrity throughout the 70’s and 80’s. He allegedly killed 36 women, but by his own admission, there were at least 100 more unaccounted for. His trial was marked by alot of pomp and arrogance on his own part, and the media and public ate it up. He went out with a bang in 1989, when he was at long last, executed by electrocution. Below is the list of women he murdered. Katherine Merry Divine, 15. Disappeared: Nov 25, 1973, from Seattle Wa. Found: Dec. 6, 1973, in McKenny Park, Wa.

A couple found her body laying face first in the sodden forest. Decomposition had made it hard to determine exact cause of death, but evidence suggested she’d been sodomized, and she had been strangled. It’s possible that her throat was also cut. Before his execution, Bundy admitted to picking up a hitchhiker in 73 and leaving her body near Olympia [where Devine was found] but he couldn’t remember where exactly. Joni Lenz, 18. Attacked: early January 1974 Joni had gone to sleep in her basement room of a big house which several young people rented from.

The next afternoon, after she hadn’t appeared all morning, her housemates went to check on her nd found her lying in her bed, her hair and face matted with dried blood. She’d been beaten with a metal rod broken from the bed frame, and when they pulled the covers back, they were horrified to find the rod had been brutally jammed into her vagina. The incredible thing is, this poor girl lived through the attack. It left irreparable damage to her internal organs, and she was left with no memory of the attack. It had also left her severely brain damaged.

She was a shy, friendly girl with no enemies, and it was determined to be a random act of savage violence. Lynda Ann Healy,21 Disappeared: Jan 31, 1974 Seattle, Wa Found: March 3,1975 Taylor Mountain, Wa A tall, slender beautiful girl with long dark hair and blue eyes. Upon investigation, the police pulled back her bedcovers and found a heavily blood stained pillowcase and blood-soaked sheets. Her nightgown was found stuffed in her closet, the neck lined crusted with dried blood. The clothes she’d worn that day were missing. Not one trace of the attacker or her body could be found.

A year later, during a thorough investigation of what came to be known as Bundy’s graveyard, Lynda’s skull was found, bearing the unmistakable marks of icious battering. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Donna Gail Manson, 19 Disappeared: Mar 12, 1974 from Evergreen State College, near Olympia Found: Bundy claimed a part of her was found Mar 3, 1975 at Taylor Mountain, Wa In March of 74, she was very depressed. She wasn’t reported missing for 6 days because of her habit of taking off on whims. March 12, she’d left her room around 7 pm to walk to a campus jazz concert.

She was never seen alive again. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution and said her remains were part of those unidentified bones found Mar 3, 1975 on Taylor Mountain, Wa Susan Elaine Rancourt, 19 Disappeared: April 17,1974, Central Wa. State College, Ellensburg Found: Mar 3,1975 Taylor Mountain, Wa She never went anywhere alone. It was dark, but the campus was hopping with students. The meeting ended at 9, and she’d planned to meet a friend to see a German film. The friend finally went alone when Susan never showed. Susan was last seen leaving the advisor’s meeting.

On a rare occasion she took a chance and hurried into the dark alone. And never came back. Investigators found only her skull as they excavated Taylor Mountain, Bundy’s apparent graveyard of severed heads. It was brutally fractured. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Brenda Baker, 15 Disappeared: May 25, 1974–ran away from home in Redmond, Wa Found: June 17, 1974 in Millersylvania Park several miles from where Kathy Devine was found} Her badly decomposed body was found in the park, and cause of death was impossible to determine.

She’d run away from home, and no personal info is available at this point. Roberta Kathleen Parks, 20 Disappeared: May 6, 1974, from OSU in Corvalles, Oregon Found:Mar 3, 1975 Taylor Mountain, Wa May 4th she’d had an argument with her father on the phone, and her sister alled from Spokane on May 6th to tell her their father had suffered a massive heart attack. Her sister called later with the good news that their father would recover. It’s speculated that Kathy was feeling terrible guilt over the argument and the heart attack that followed.

That night, she agreed to walk to another dorm hall to have coffee with friends. She never arrived. Her skull was exacavated with the others on Taylor Mountain, so far away from her Oregon dorm. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Brenda Carol Ball, 22 Disappeared: May 31, 1974, Burien, Wa Found: Mar 1, 975 in the thickly wooded Taylor Mountain Brenda stood 5 ft 3, 112 lbs, with lively brown eyes. On the night of May 31-June 1, she’d gone to the Flame Tavern alone. She told friends that day, she would see about getting a ride to Sun Lakes, on the eastern side of the state, to meet them there later.

She stayed at the tavern till 2 am, then asked a musician for a ride, but he was going the other way. She was seen last in the parking lot, talking to a man with his arm in a sling. Because she was such a free spirit, her friends thought nothing of her absence, and didn’t become suspicious until almost 19 days after he was last seen. March 1 of 1975, college students working on Taylor Mt, discovered the first of several skulls on that mountian, and it proved to be that of Brenda Ball. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Georgeann Hawkins, 18 Disappeared: June 10, 1974 UW in Seattle, Wa.

Found: According to Bundy, one of her bones was found Sept 6,1974 nearly 2 miles from Lake Sammamish State Park On June 10th, Many students were cramming for exams that night, so Georgeann was hardly the only one awake at 12:30 am. She visited her boyfriend, borrowed some Spanish notes, then headed or the street. A friend called out of a window to her, and they chatted for a few minutes. She said goodnight and walked 30 feet away before he stuck his head back in through the window. 2 other male friends remembered seeing her cover the last 20 feet before disappearing around the corner.

She only had 40 feet to go in the brightly lit alley. Georgeann’s roommate knew something was wrong when she didn’t arrive 2 hours later, and she called Georgeann’s boyfriend and learned she had left his place at 1 am. She woke the housemother, and together they waited for the girl. They called the police in the orning, and because of the other disappearances in the area, the Seattle police took action immediately. They later learned that a housemother had awaken to a high scream. She’d thought it was a few of the students hoarsing around as usual, and went back to sleep.

Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution, and though he was foggy on the details, he remembered how trusting she was. He’d asked her for help carrying his briefcase to his car because of his fake cast, and she’d trustingly obliged. He knocked her out, stuffed her into the car and sped away. She came to before he killed her, and in her onfused ramblings, said she had thought he’d been sent to help her with her Spanish exam. He knocked her out again, then pulled over and strangled her. Before his execution he claimed that part of her remains were found Sept 6,1974 nearly 2 miles from Lake Sammamish State Park.

Janice Ott, 23 Disappeared:July 14, 1974 Lake Sammamish State park, Wa Found: Sept 6,1974 nearly 2 miles from the park A newly wed of a year and a half, July 14th was a sad day for her. The job she’d worked so hard for had taken her away to Washington, leaving her husband behind in his own practice in Riverside Ca. She was missing him very much the day of her disappearance. She left a note for her roommate and told her she’d be home by 4, then biked to the park. Witnesses later said she got up to help a friendly man in a cast, and that was the last Janice Ott was ever seen alive.

Workers discovered some of her remains in a wooded area where other victims had been dumped. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Denise Naslund, 18 Disappeared:July 14, 1974 Lake Sammamish State park, Wa Found: Sept 6,1974 nearly 2 miles from the park Denise was studying to be a computer programmer, working part ime in an office to pay her way through night school. She and her boyfriend of 9 months had planned a picnic that day at the park with another couple. They roasted hot dogs, then the men fell asleep in the sun. Denise walked off to the bathrooms around 4:30 pm.

She never returned. Her friends started to worry after a while, and searched for her. Denise had brought her dog and they hoped she was looking for the dog, but it turned up alone. Workers discovered some of her remains in a wooded area where other victims had been dumped along with Janice Ott’s remains} Bundy confessed to her murder efore his execution. Melissa Smith, 17 Disappeared:Oct 18,1974 Midvale, Utah Found:Oct 27,1974 near Summit park, in the Wasatch Mountains Melissa was the daughter of Midvale’s police chief and was a very cautious girl.

Midvale itself was a small Mormon town, very quiet, and though her father worried about his kids and taught them to be safety-aware, Melissa had little to fear in the tiny community. October 18th, Melissa had plans to attend a slumber party. She ended up walking to the local pizza parlor to console a friend who’d had a quarrel with her boyfriend. After this, she left to ick her overnight clothes up and go to the party. She never made it home, and she never made it to the party. The teenager who’d gone to comfort a friend in need, was found battered and nude 9 days later, far from the small town she’d grown up in.

Her head had been severely beaten with perhaps a crowbar, and her body had been battered before death. She had been strangled, raped and sodomized. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Laura Aime, 17 Disappeared: Oct 31,1974, Lehi, Utah Found:Nov 27,1974 in the Wasatch Mountains Laura had stood nearly 6 ft tall and weighed a mere 15 lbs, and felt very insecure of her “awkward,” bony appearance. She’d dropped out of high school and moved in with friends while working small jobs. She was referred to as a drifter looking for something to grasp in life.

She talked to her parents daily, but wasn’t missed until 4 days after Halloween. She had gone to a cafe on Halloween night and, bored with the activity there, left around midnight and headed to a park. She was found a month later on the bank of a river in the Wasatch Mountains. Her face was beaten beyond recognition and she was found nude. She had been strangled and apparently beaten with n iron crowbar or prybar. Like Melissa Smith, she had been sexually assaulted. She had been drinking just enough to be intoxicated, but not so much that she couldn’t scream, run or fight back. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution.

Carol DaRonch, 18 Attacked: Nov 8,1974, Salk Lake City, Utah It was a rainy day when 18 yr old Carol DaRonch left home around 6:30 pm and headed towards a Murray shopping mall. While at the mall, she ran into some cousins and visited with them for a while. Then she made a purchase and went off to Waldens Books. As she was looking through some books, a andsome, well dressed man approached her. He asked if she’d parked near Sears, and she said yes. He asked for her license number and she gave it to him. He then told her that someone had tried to break into her car, and she needed to come take a look.

Young and trusting, Carol DaRonch didn’t even wonder how he’d found her. He had an authorititave air that made her assume he was a security guard or officer. She followed him quietly out of the building, but felt a sudden apprehension as they headed out into the rainy night. She asked him for some ID, and he only laughed, making her feel stupid for bothering. They got to her car, and nothing was missing. He then told her she needed to come to the station to see if she knew the suspect. After much hesitation, she follwed him to a side building which he told her was a sub station, [it was the back door of a laundry mat].

He said the suspect must have been taken to headquearters. He then co-erced her into going to “headquarters. ” It wasn’t until they were in his Volkswagon that she smelled alcohol on his breath. When he told her to put on her seatbelt, she said no, and was ready to jump, but he’d already driven off and was going very fast. She realized he was heading way from the police station. Suddenly he screeched to a halt and tried to hand-cuff her, but in the struggle, connected both cuffs to the same wrist. As they struggled, he pulled out a small gun and threatened her with it.

She fell out of the door into the sodden earth, and got up as he came at her with a crowbar. He threw her up against the car, and in a sheer adreneline rush brought on by utter terror, Carol DaRonch broke free from her attacker and ran wildly to the road. An older couple came upon her just in time and took the terrified girl to the police station. She was their first living, breathing victim. Debby Kent, 17 Disappeared: Nov 8,1975 Bountiful, Utah Found: Never Several people who lived near the school later admitted to hearing 2 short, terrified screams between 10:30 and 11.

They described them as coming from someone in “mortal terror. ” They even walked outside and stared into the darkness, hoping to find the source. They saw nothing, and they reported nothing. Debby’s brother waited at the rink while the crowds thinned at the high school, leaving her irritated parents waiting til midnight. When they realized theirs was the only car left in the parking lot, they immediately called the Bountiful olice, who were all to familiar with the recent disappearances in nearby towns.

Later, a father told police he’d arrived late at the play and saw a light colored VW bug racing away from the school. A small hand-cuff key was found in the parking lot, one that fit the cuffs Carol DaRonch had brought in. Nothing else was turned up. Debby Kent’s family faced a tragic, heart broken Christmas, along with Melissa Smith’s and Laura Aime’s families. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Caryn Campbell, 23 Disappeared: Jan 12, 1976 Wildwood Inn, Aspen, Colorado Found: Feb 18, 1975 Owl Creek Road, Aspen Colorado Caryn was a registered nurse from Farmington, Michigan.

She was engaged to a cardiologist who was 9 yrs older than her, and got along well with his 2 children. They had gone to Aspen to combine a medical seminar with a vacation. Later they ate dinner with friends, then returned to the inn where they were staying. They settled in the lounge, and Caryn remembered a magazine she’d left in their room, and went to retrieve it. After she had been gone a while, her fiancee went to find her. She wasn’t in the room, she wasn’t anywhere to be found. He searched frantically for her and oon brought the police into it. She’d simply vanished into thin air.

He had to pack and fly home with his children, but kept waiting for a call from Caryn, explaining why she’d walked away from them. She never called. On February 18th, she was found in a snowbank off of Owl Creek Rd, not far from the inn where she had been vacationing. She lay in the bloodstained snowbank nude, battered and cut. It was highly likely that she was raped. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Julie Cunningham, 26 Disappeared: Mar 15, 1975 Vail, Colorado Found:Never Julie was considered to be a ery nice woman, and worked in a sporting good store while also working part-time as a ski instructor.

She had a depressing history with men, often falling for the wrong type, only to hear the “it was great, I’ll call you sometime” line she’d come to know so well. The week she disappeared, she’d had the last heartbreak of her life. She’d thought this was the right one, and had gone to Sun Valley with him for a weekend, only to learn he’d had no interest in a long term relationship. She wanted marriage and kids, and she was in the wrong atmosphere for finding a lasting relationship. She returned to Vail, crying and depressed.

On March 15th, she talked to her mother for the last time on the phone, then decided she needed a break, and left for the local tavern. She would have met her roommate there, but Julie Cunningham never arrived. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Denise Oliverson, 25 Disappeared: Apr 6, 1975 Grand Junction, Colorado Found: Never The pretty dark haired woman had argued badly with her husband before she peddled off on her bike to visit her parents. Her parents hadn’t expected her, and when she didn’t return that night, her husband assumed she was still ngry with him and had stayed at their house.

He decided to give her some time to cool off, and the next day, when he called their house, was alarmed to learn she had never arrived there. Police searched the route she had most likely taken, and found her bike and her sandals under a viaduct near a railroad bridge. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Melanie Cooley, 18 Disappeared: Apr 15, 1975 Nederland, Colorado Found: Apr 23, 1975 Coal Creek Rd, Nederland, Colorado Melanie could have been Debby Kent’s twin sister, and had walked off from her small town high school that spring ay, never to be seen alive again.

County road workers found her body 20 miles away. She had been bludgeoned on the back of the head, her hands had been tied, and a dirty pillowcase was left twisted around her neck. No other information is available on the victim at this moment. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution. Shelly Robertson, 24 July 1,1975 Golden, Colorado Found:Aug 21,1975 a mine in Berthoud Pass, Colorado Shelly was given to hitchhiking for fun to other states, and when she didn’t show up for work on July 1, friends and family first thought she’d gone off on a him again.

She’d argued with her boyfriend prior to her disappearance, and no one knew exactly what she was feeling July 1. The summer passed without a word, and they realized with dread that the 24 yr old had not gone away on her own. They learned she had been last seen by friends on June 30th, and on July 1, a policeman had noticed her at a gas station with a man in a beat up old truck. August 21, her nude body was found inside a mine by 2 mining students. Cause of death was impossible to determine because of decomposition. Bundy confessed to her murder before his execution.

The Martinson Report of the early 1970s, said that rehabilitative efforts or treatment programs in general had failed to reduce recidivism. The Report led those in control of government and the criminal justice system to say that rehabilitation does not work, and therefore focus on deterrence and punishment of offenders. Martinsons study of 231 treatment studies measured offender improvement in various areas, but recidivism is the issue here. Martinson says With few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism (p. 2).

Martinson says that education and vocational training in the studies he reviewed had no influence on reducing recidivism. But he admits that a correctional facility running a truly rehabilitative program that gets inmates ready for life on the outside by way of education and vocational training will have more successful persons than prisons that have no such programs (Martinson, p. 292). Martinson says that individual counseling also fails to reduce recidivism.

In terms of group counseling he admits that a study of adult offenders did show improvement in attitudes of offenders, but since it did not include information on recidivism it was discounted. Martinson is criticized because the counseling programs may not seem to work because of the institutional environment outside the program. Martinson says that even in institutional environments that control every part of the offenders environment and treatment, did show a reduction in recidivism for one year.

But he says the effects of such treatment did not reduce recidivism any more than no treatment after two years. And it had no influence on reducing the recidivism rates of young offenders (Martinson, p. 296). Prisoners with less sentences were found to have a higher parole success rate than those with longer sentences, but did not deal with the issue of offender degree of risk (Martinson, p. 299). Martinson says that since these treatment programs in prison did not work, maybe rehabilitating offenders outside an institutional setting may work.

But the studies he reviewed showed no effect in treating the client. But he says that individual psychotherapy may work in a community setting. Martinson said that their was no evidence to believe that intensive supervision of adults would reduce recidivism. But he said that a smaller case load did improve a persons chances of parole success (p. 305). But he says that intensive supervision works not because of the mechanisms of treatment or rehabilitation, but due to the mechanism of deterrence (Ibid).

Martinson says that community treatment may not reduce recidivism, but it does insure that the client will not become worse. Also community treatment is cheaper than treatment in prisons. Martinson admits that the reason why treatment has not worked is due to these reasons: he education we provide to inmates is still poor education, that the therapy we administer is not administered skillfully enough, that our intensive supervision and counseling do not yet provide enough personal support for the offenders who are subjected to them (p. 07).

Sundt et al. (1998) article says that past research has shown that the public supports rehabilitation as a core goal of corrections. They say that over the past decade, the conservative campaign to get tough on crime has grown in strength and influence. Stundt et al (1998) article replicates a 1986 study by Cullen et al that explored attitudes toward correctional treatment. They found that public support for rehabilitation has declined , but that the public continues to view treatment as a legitimate correctional objective.

A majority of the public now believes that the main emphasis of prisons should be to punish offenders or protect society. But the majority of the public still favors expanding rehabilitation programs. In terms of early release from prison for good behavior and participation in educational and work programs, half of the public opposes early release. Also 40% of the public oppose expanding treatment programs (p. 426). Sundt et al (1998) found that two thirds of the public perceived correctional rehabilitation to be very helpful or helpful.

They found that only with regard to sex offenders and violent offenders did a majority of the public perceive that treatment would be ineffective, but 40% believed that treatment would be slightly helpful for these offenders. The Sundy et al (1998) article shows that the belief in the efficacy of rehabilitation is somewhat stable. Even if the public is less confident that specific treatment programs work, most still perceive rehabilitation as being an effective way to treat offenders. They say that the decline in support from 1986 is not due to the belief that nothing works.

They say that many studies from the past decade (the late 1980s through the early 1990s) shows the effectiveness of treatment interventions is now extensive and stronger that it was in 1986. For example Palmer 1995 article shows that treatment programs do work to reduce recidivism and are effective ways to treat offenders in prison. The change in support for rehabilitation is due to the penal harm movement that wants to punish offenders, and opposing any treatment or rehabilitation due to cost and perception that criminals cannot change.

Gendreau et al (1996) article discusses effective assessment, believing that good risk measures can predict recidivism in the . 30 – . 45 range. In terms of the methods of assessment, Gendreau et al (1996) says their is two models of assessing and predicting human behavior, which are clinical and actuarial. They say that the clinical model dominates, and in the case of corrections clinical assessment consists of an expert, such as probation officer interviewing an offender for the purpose of determining their risk to reoffend.

The expert bases their decision on intuition, experience, and file information on the client to make the correct decision. The actuarial method is based on empirically established correlation\\’s between a standardized objective risk measure and recidivism, and therefore limits the experts subjective opinion in the decision making process. Gendreau et al. (1996) article says the actuarial approach is the best, since the clinical method only predicted recidivism 8% of the time (r=. 08). The actuarial method was r=. , and produced higher correlation\\’s with outcome 76% of the time.

The results apply to corrections, such as that sex offenders (Hanson & Bussiere, 1996) and violent offenders (Mossman, 1994) clearly demonstrated the superiority of the actuarial model. The Hanson & Bussiere, 1996 study of sex offenders found the actuarial model to be about three times more powerful. Gendreau et al (1996) say that there is simply no justification whatsoever for the continued use of the clinical model of assessment considering what is at stake (i. , protecting the public) in our line of work.

The static risk factors that are criminal behavior predictors are age, gender, past criminal history, early family factors, and criminal associates that predict recidivism. But their is also dynamic risk predictors, such as criminogenic needs. Simourd (1996) defined criminogenic needs as attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors held by an offender that support negative attitudes toward all forms of official authority and conventional non deviant pursuits (e. g. ducation, work, stable pro social relationships); deviant values that are used to justify aggression, and substance abuse; and rationalizations for antisocial behavior that free one from any moral constraints.

Gendreau et al. (1996) tested the static risk predictors by a meta-analysis of 131 studies from 1970-94 that produced 1,14f1 correlation\\’s with recidivism. They confirmed that age, gender, early family factors, adult criminal history and history of antisocial behavior as a teen, and criminal associates are reliable predictors of recidivism.

They found that dynamic predictors, especially criminogenic needs predicted recidivism (r=. 17) as well as static predictors including past criminal history (r=. 16). Gendreau et al (1996) article found that the prediction of recidivism is best accomplished by using measures that assesses static and dynamic risk factors. They recommend the Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R) (Andrews & Bonta, 1995), due to the studies that confirm its predictive validity in predicting recidivism and prison adjustment for a variety of offender populations, such as sex offenders.

The sex offender literature is complex, such as Marshal (1996) belief that assessment of the sex offender with phallometric procedures is ethically questionable, and that it is much easier to predict violent recidivism than sexual recidivism. However, Hanson and Bussieres (1996) meta-analysis of 61 sex offender studies found 970 correlation\\’s with recidivism concluding the following: a) the largest single predictor of sexual offending were sexual preference for children and deviant sexual preference as measured by phallometric methods.

The respective r values were high (. 32 and . ); b) measures of personal distress, be they anxiety, depression, or self-esteem, were not significant predictors of sexual, non-sexual, or violent recidivism; c) combinations of variables identified in their research should be able to predict recidivism in the . 30-. 40 range, that is similar to what has been found in studies of general recidivism (Gendreau et al. , 1996). Gendreau et al. (1996) says that assessments of general criminal deviance, such as antisocial personality attitudes, and non-sex offending criminal history have been under used in the sex offender area.

This is especially true of the rapist who appears to have a good deal in common with the high risk non-sex offender (Quinsey, Lalumiere, Rice, and Harris, 1995). Researchers in the area of sex offending have identified a list of other factors that should be assess in the future, such as the lack of empathy toward the victim, denial and minimization, deviant sexual fantasies, unfulfilled intimacy needs, association with other sex offenders, access to victims, and the interaction of psychopathy and deviant sexual arousal (Hanson & Bussiere, 1996; Marshall, 1996; Quinsey et al, 1995). Gendreau et al. 996) says that well-galidated measures designed specifically for use with sex offenders are rare (e. g. , Epperson, Kaul, & Huot, 1995).

Gendreau concludes that the most effective model of assessing offender characteristics predictive of recidivism is the actuarial technique, and that the realization that dynamic predictors (i. e. , criminogenic need) are crucial for the accurate assessment of offender risk. Male sex offenders in prison represent a major problem for correctional administrators in the United States, due to the public, legislative, and legal pressures to do something about these most reviled offenders.

Most correctional systems in the United States and Canada offer some form of treatment for sex offenders, ranging from individual to group counseling to highly intensive therapeutic communities that use the most recent treatment techniques (US Dept. of Justice). The responsibility for treating and supervising sex offenders has increasingly shifted from mental health institutions to corrections, as the Mentally dangerous Sexual Psychopath laws adopted by many states in the 1940s have been phased out.

In general treatment professionals have concluded that most sex offenders are not mentally ill and have not benefited from traditional psychiatric treatment. Fortunately for society, promising new approaches in corrections have been developed to help treat sex offenders that hopefully will reduce recidivism. The Association for the Treatment of sexual Abusers supports the position that treatment of sex offenders should not replace a criminal justice response, but should be one of several tools used by society to meet the needs of the offender and protect and insure public safety.

The fact is that treatment can be combined with other criminal justice responses, such as jail, incarceration in prison, probation, and community monitoring and supervision (ATSA). The U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections article, An Administrators Overview-Questions and Answers on Issues Related to the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender, hereafter cited as (US Dept. of Justice) adapted by Barbara Krauth and Roger smith from A Practitioners Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender summarizes the new treatment approach used to meet the needs of this offender population.

The Administrators Overview highlights material contained in the Practitioners Guide used by those expected to treat sex offenders and is focused at correctional administrators, who must make critical decisions with limited resources. The NIC training seminars, and the Practitioners Guide produced as a result of these seminars that began in 1986, stress the importance of a systems approach to program planning, design, and management. The approach requires the active participation and support of legislators, prosecutors, judges, mental health professionals, advocacy groups, and all segments of the correctional system.

It grew out of the belief that supportive administrators play an important role in the developing and operating effective treatment programs for sex offenders who are incarcerated to help end the vicious cycle of abuse, in which victims frequently become offenders. There is more than one type of sex offender. Sex offenders are a diverse group that cannot be characterized by any single motivation or causal factor. Typologies have been created to account for the different forms of sexual deviance.

The categories developed by the FBI, based on other typologies, are currently most frequently used in criminal investigations. The FBI categories of sex offenders are as follow: Child molesters who turn to prepubescent youths for sexual gratification. The two main types of child molester are the situational and preferential (often called the pedophile). The situational child molester is made up of persons that do not have a defined sexual preference for children. They include the following subtypes: Regressed, who is an immature, socially inept person that relates to children as peers.

This person usually experienced a brief period of low self-esteem and turned to his own kids or others for sexual satisfaction. He is morally indiscriminate, with an antisocial attitude that uses and abuses everyone. He chooses his victims based on vulnerability and opportunity and only coincidentally because they are kids. He is sexually indiscriminate, who may be developmentally disabled, psychotic, senile, or organically dysfunctional (US Dept. of Justice, pp. 2-3).

The preferential (pedophile) child molesters are fixated, in that they are attracted to children throughout their lives and have been unable to attain any degree of psycho-sexual maturity. The subtypes of this type of child molester is as follows: Seductive, having an exclusive sexual interest in children and trying to court and seduce them. He is introverted, having a fixated interest in children but does not have the social skills to seduce them. He typically molests strangers or very young children or marries women with children the age of his preference.

He may be sadistic, having a sexual preference for children, coupled with a need to inflict pain in order to obtain sexual gratification (US Dept. of Justice, p. 3). The adult sex offender is the rapist, who are usually motivated by a fusion of anger and power needs and sexuality. They are classified according to the characteristics of the assault as well as of the assailant. There is three main types of rapists, the anger rapist, the power rapist, and the sadistic rapist. The anger rape is associated with gratuitous violence and the intention to hurt, devalue, and express contempt for the victim.

This type of assault is typically opportunistic and is usually committed in response to a precipitating stress. The power rape is typically used as a way of exercising dominance, mastery, strength, authority, and control over the victim. The power rapist has little need for excessive physical force beyond what is needed to gain the victims submission. They are less physically dangerous that the anger rapist, but may be more compulsive and often engage in elaborate fantasies and plans.

The sadistic rape is the most severe pathology of rape on the part of the offender as well as the most dangerous type of assault. This type of rape has the ritual of torturing the victim and the perception of her suffering and degradation gives the offender erotic pleasure. As the rapists arousal builds, so may his sadistic acts of violence, progressing in some cases to the point of lust murder (US Dept. of Justice, p. 3). The Administrators Overview, says that just about every incarcerated sex offender in treatment is a rapists or child molesters.

Therefore I will not discuss voyeurs, exhibitionists, or obscene phone callers in jail, except to say that this misdemeanor sex behavior may be about to commit a rape, or is engaged in an escalating pattern of deviant behavior that may lead to rape. Also the sex offender may not specialize in one type of sex abuse, but be engaged in voyeurism, rape, and child molestation. The vast majority of offenders are males, with about 80% of sex offenses against children being committed by males and about 20% by females (ATSA-reducing sex abuse… ). The offender is usually know by the victim or family eighty to ninety-five percent of the time.

The sex offender is a family member in less than 50% of cases, and are identified as acquaintances, such as neighbors, coaches, teachers, religious leaders in the remaining cases (Ibid. ). Clearly intervention and treatment is very important to treat the sex offender. Sex crimes are viewed with horror by the public. Those that fear this offender population would prefer to lock them up forever. This negative public attitude has caused some corrections officials to not spend scarce resources on creating treatment opportunities for this group of offenders, thinking that punishment and deterrence are more appropriate (US Dept. Justice, p. 4).

The typical atmosphere in the usual prison tends to aggravate the problem of most sex offenders. The secrecy, negative social interactions, poor self-esteem, denigrating attitudes toward women, and deviant sexual arousal are usually reinforced in prison. Despite the criticism, without treatment, sex offenders are highly likely to re-offend. The statistical data suggests that the recidivism rate of untreated offenders is about 60 percent, while recidivism among those who have been treated is about 15 to 20 percent. Therefore, it is in the interest of society to protect potential victims by treating sex offenders.

Treatment is not a cure for sex offenders, but successful treatment does reduce the likelihood of recidivism. It does not permanently eliminate the attraction of deviant sexual acts for sex offenders, who are always at risk of repeating their deviant behavior. But, only through treatment can the offender learn to control their behavior. The sex offender must use what they learn in treatment to maintain self-control over their behavior. It can help them to recognize the situations that increase their likelihood of re-offending, and teach them techniques to control their behavior in these situations.

Kaufman, et al. (1998) discusses factors that influence sexual offenders modus operandi, including an examination of victim-offender relatedness and age. They say that the majority of research literature in this area has focused mainly on adult offenders, and offers only preliminary understanding of sexual- offending process. The general findings indicate that it may be useful to describe offense patterns based on specific variables, such as relationship of the victim to the offender.

For example, Faller (1989) found that intrafamilial offenders with close relationships to victims, such as biological and stepfathers abuse their victims more often and for a longer duration of time than do intrafamilial offenders of more distant relations, such as noncustodial fathers, or other relatives. The purpose of the Kaufman et al. (1998) study was to investigate and contrast the modus operandi (MO) of key subgroups of sexual offenders in an effort to increase the understanding of the behavioral process associated with sex offending.

Their findings support the assertion that offender age group (i. e. adolescent vs. adult) as well as victim / offender relatedness maintain victim silence following the onset of sex abuse. The study found that adolescent offenders consistently reported using MO strategies with greater frequency than did their adult counterparts. Adults larger physical size as well as their inherent power, social or parental may reduce their need to engage in MO strategies. The impact of offender / victim relatedness was found to have a major impact on some MO dimensions.

The intrafamilial offender reported the use of gifts to gain victim compliance in sexual activities more than did extrafamilial offenders. They may use gifts to maintain their relationships with victims as well as to obtain compliance in sexual activities. Extrafamilial offenders said they gave victims alcohol and drugs more than did their intrafamilial counterparts to gain compliance in sexual activities. The study suggests some prevention programs conveying simple messages (e. g. , Say no, run, and tell) are unlikely to lead to a reduction in sex offenses.

Prevention must look at the subtle nature of the grooming process (i. e. , including the involvement of prosocial behaviors), the reality that most offenders are known to the victim, and the impact of key subgroup factors (e. g. , offender age and relationship to the victim) on the offenders modus operandi. Some sex offenders cannot be treated successfully, such as those with lifelong histories of antisocial acts are not likely to benefit from treatment. Also very violent and sadistic offenders, sociopathic offenders with no empathy, and those not motivated for treatment are typically impossible to treat.

Offenders with the best prognosis for treatment have committed few sex crimes, having little history of Alcohol and other Drug dependence, are not mentally ill, and are of normal intelligence can benefit from treatment. Clearly those with a mental illness, or who are under the influence of mind altering drugs or who have less that a seventh grade education cannot possible benefit from a cognitive behavioral treatment program that requires the ability to comprehend and think on a level to overcome thinking errors, cognitive distortions, and other problems.

The Administrators Overview, says that it is difficult to determine if sex offender treatment programs in correctional institutions have been successful by reducing recidivism because experimentally based data is rare, and different treatment programs collected data in different ways and tracked divergent groups of sex offenders without the use of classical experimental design (US Dept. of Justice, p. 5). Also they say that recidivism data may vary because different definitions of recidivism exist. They do say that these problems should be resolved over the years to come, due to the improvements in keeping reliable outcome data for programs.

The approaches to assessment and treatment of sex offenders must include the following techniques to identify sex offender treatment needs. Techniques used to assess sex offenders include clinical interviews, self-reporting, psychological tests, questionnaires, and physiological methods, such as use of the plethysmograph to measure deviant sexual arousal.

All of the above information can not only identify those persons most likely to benefit from treatment, but also help to identify specific areas that need to be targeted for intervention and treatment ( US Dept. of Justice, p. 7-8). Howard E. Barbarees article, discusses the assessment and treatment outcomes of sex offenders that use denial and minimization to not accept responsibility. Denial is usually seen as a main impediment to successful therapy and as a consequence, most treatment programs exclude offenders who deny their offense. The offender use denial to conclude that he has no problems and that there is no reason for him to be treated, even if he admits to the offense, he may history the truth by minimizing the frequency severity and variety of his criminal sexual behavior.

He found that in a nonrandom survey, 114 incarcerated rapists were divided into those that admitted to the offense for which they had been convicted (41% and those who denied it (59%). Also both groups presented justifications that were used to support their denial or to minimize responsibility for the offense. They blamed the victim, by saying she had a bad sexual reputation, an by saying they it was alcohol an drugs that caused them to do it. Also some blamed a bad childhood. Denials and distortions weakens both the accurate assessment and the effective treatment of sex offenders. Therapists depend on offenders to provide truthful descriptions of the events that lead of to their offenses to help determine what behaviors need to be targeted in therapy.

Denial and minimization is the results of a psychological process involving distortions, mistaken attributions, rationalization, and selective attention and memory, which helps the offender avoid blame and responsibility for their actions. They recommend that offenders not be excluded from treatment due to denial and minimization, because such cognitions can be amenable through treatment and should be the first stage of treatment, to increase motivation for treatment and set the stage for further assessment and treatment (Barbaree). Nancy Howard and Rick Caslin (1999) says that cognitive training and not excuses is what sex offenders need to avoid recidivism. Sex offenders often show thinking errors and rationalizations to justify their actions and avoid accepting responsibility for their actions.

Sex offenders used several defensive mechanisms, such as rationalization, minimization, intellectualization, and denial to avoid the truth and reality. They may feel guilty or ashamed of their actions, but want to hide it instead of accepting responsibility. An essential element of any sex offender that works, must be to challenge an offenders thinking errors to help the offender learn responsible, non-criminal behavior. The use of thinking journals or logs of their daily thinking can be used to help them and the treatment provider identify thinking errors and become aware of how often they make them. Offenders should assist one another in recognizing thinking errors. This will help the offender to have a better decision making process, and reduce their risk of recidivism (Howard & Caslin).

Sex offender treatment can be treated by professionals from various disciplines, such as rehabilitation counselors, social workers, psychologists, criminologists, and educators. Also correctional officers, counselors, and caseworkers can be trained to facilitate group therapy and teach modules to sex offenders. Also inmates are expected to be active participants in the group process, and can assist in providing certain treatment techniques under the supervision of the treatment provider. The kind of personality of the treatment provider that works best has the ability to work in a group setting. They are confrontative in a non-defensive proactive way and have an empathetic and caring attitude. They are comfortable with their sexuality.

They must maintain a professional relationship with the offender. They must not be influenced by their personal bias, and be objective with sex offenders whose behavior may be viewed as personally repugnant. Also if the counselor has been sexually victimized themselves, must successfully resolve their own personal issues before they can best interact effectively with sex offenders. Gerber (1995) article discusses counter-transference in working with sex offenders to help treatment providers recognize their reactions to the male sex offender. Professional working with male sex offenders in treatment programs must work to enhance self-knowledge in order to protect their clients from personal bias.

They recommend the triage approach to classifying risk and need according to level of priority to more efficiently use limited resources. They say that pedophiles and more violent rapists will be prime candidates for treatment in the Regional Psychiatric Center, while other rapists will be treated at Bowden, and most incest offenders in community treatment programs. They say that each type of sex offender should be treated with the same type of offender in a treatment setting that has the specific assessment and treatment procedures to meet their particular needs (Ibid). Since, sexual deviance is a complex behavior, several treatment approaches are usua

In our era of high criminal activity something had to be done to eliminate the vast over crowding of today’s prisons. A military type “boot camp” was created to alter offenders’ behavior and deter them from any future criminal activity. This program is said to provide a therapeutic environment and meet the needs of offenders that can still become law- abiding citizens.

The Shock Incarceration Program meets those needs and at the same time meets its goals which are “reducing the demand for bed space in the Department of Correctional Services and treat and release selected state prisoners earlier than court-mandated minimum sentences without ompromising community safety”(Nieto). The paper will discuss the program’s origination, guidelines, eligibility, screening process, and daily activities. An interview with a shock graduate will give a first hand view on the realities of the program.

The New York State Shock Incarceration program was established on July 13, 1987. It was designed for young inmates who could benefit from an intense six month program of incarceration. The legislative bill states “the program would be provided to certain inmates institutionalized to the State Department of Correctional Services who are in need of substance buse treatment and rehabilitation. The program is an alternative form of incarceration that highly stresses discipline, considerable physical work, exercise, and drug rehabilitation therapy.

It would build character, gradually implant a sense of maturity and responsibility and promote a positive self image, so they can return to society as law-abiding citizens. ” Four facilities were established. The first Monterey Shock Incarceration Correctional Facility (SICF) received their first inmates on September 10, 1987. Summit SICF received their first inmates on April 12, 1988, and their female component began in December of 1988. Moriah SICF received its first platoon on March 28, 1989.

Lakeview SICF received its first inmates on September 11, 1978. Summits’ female portion of the program was transferred to Lakeview in May of 1992. According to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1997, There are only seven states that offer this program to women, New York is one of seven states and holds the most women with one hundred and eighty beds available. New York’s Shock incarceration program is divided into two phases. Phase one consists of an intensive incarceration program operated by DOCS.

In phase one an inmate is built around a therapeutic program called network,” which tries to obtain a positive environment to support successful reintegration of inmates into the community. Here inmates are heavily occupied with activities associated with boot camps. Phase two begins after program completion, where an inmate is intensively supervised while in the community by the Division of parole. A program called “AfterShock” assist them with housing, drug and alcohol treatment, relapse prevention, family counseling, and job training and placement.

Each state has its own criteria for inmate eligibility into the program. New York’s judges cannot sentence offenders directly to shock, hey must be legally eligible and meet the following criteria. Anyone ages sixteen to thirty-five years old; nonviolent or sex offenders are not eligible; and parole eligibility has to be less than thirty-six months; screening is conducted on general suitability (criminal history and nature of current offense) both male and females are eligible. Vermont’s is also a voluntary program it’s two criteria’s for eligibility, one is to be a male, and to be able to work.

I Tennessee judges can sentence an offender to mandatory shock incarceration, however, the Department of Corrections can also recommend an inmate. Its criteria are as follows sentenced to prison ages eighteen to thirty-five, their term must be less than six years and up to twelve for drug offenders. Offense must not involve serious injury, sex offense, or minors they must have good physical and mental health and comprehend and be able to follow instructions. Anyone that meets these criteria for eligibility can move onto the next step, the screening process.

All convicted offenders who are legally eligible for shock incarceration are sent to an orientation and screening process at Lake view Shock Incarceration Correctional Facility. At these interviews’ inmates re informed about the program and must decide whether they want to volunteer for the program instead of serving their full prison term. Participants are carefully examined for mental and a physical problem that would prohibit them from taking part in the program. As the evaluation takes place, the inmates are introduced to some of the program activities they will be faced with.

Once an inmate begins the program the first two weeks of shock are called “zero weeks. ” Here inmates learn the basics of physical training, drill ceremony and discipline, its period of orientation and initial evaluation. Since most inmate dropouts occur during zero weeks, the staff uses this period to emphasize education as a way to ease them into the program. According to Clark, their days consist of “highly structured activities including physical training, work, drug and alcohol treatment, education, recreation, and drill and ceremony.

There are no free time periods, no packages from no home, no commissary, no radios, no magazines, no newspapers, and no televisions. ” A standard day begins at 5:30 a. m. , which and inmate wakes up for standing count, 5:45-6:30 Calisthenics and Drill; 6:30-7:00 Run; 7:00-8:00 Mandatory breakfast/cleanup. :15 Standing count and company formation. 8:30-11:55 Work /school schedules. 12:00- 12:30 pm Mandatory lunches and standing count.

A 12:30-3:30 Afternoon work/school schedule. 3:30-4:00 Shower. 4:00-4:45 Network community meeting. 4:45-5:45 mandatory dinner, prepare for evening. :00-9:00 schools, group counseling, drug counseling, prerelease counseling, decision making classes. 8:00 Count while in programs. 9:15-9:30 Squad bay, prepare for bed. 9:30 Standing count, lights out. Inmates are required to work six hour days, divided in two three-hour periods, before and after lunch. Most camps are located near state conservation land, where inmates can maintain public use areas clean, they also work on the grounds of the shock facility. The staff and inmates have also helped the communities in need in the aftermath of emergencies. Moriah SICF inmates help maintain and clean up after forest fires.

Summit and Lakeview inmates help nearby community’s cleanup after tornadoes, and Lakeview inmates cleaned beaches after a large amount of fish were found dead in Lake Erie. Shock Incarceration inmates not only perform hard labor but they also provide services for Toy’s for Tots Program. They repair amaged donated toys, sort and prepare them for distribution all over the United States and Canada. The Network Program has been used by the Department of Correctional Systems since 1978, however, since recent budget cuts it is now only available to shock facilities.

Network program objective are grouped into three areas: “responsibility for self, responsibility to others, and responsibility for the quality for the quality of one’s life ” (Clark). A sense of self-worth and personal pride forms the foundation of a responsible lifestyle. This program was devised to help give a person these qualities; respect for self and others. It has proven to be successful in providing an opportunity for positive growth, it teaches that in order to make responsible decision he/she must consider their personal needs, the effect they have on others, and their own situation.

In order to be successful with the Network Program all staff, officers, counselors, supervisors, teachers, and support staff are intensively trained in Network methods so those skills are reinforced in every aspect of the Shock program. As stated earlier the Shock Program is a two-part process, the post prison part of the program is called Aftershock or Aftercare. Its goals are to continue the intense of supervision started during the incarceration phase and provide opportunities and programs in the community to avoid future incarceration.

Parole officers supervising shock graduates have reduced caseloads, for thirty-eight graduates two parole officers are assigned, to increase interaction and give more time for home visits, drug testing, and curfew checks. Graduates of this program have priority access to community services, such as educational and vocational training, increased employment opportunities, and relapse prevention counsel. In order to see how effective the Shock Incarceration Program really is an interview was set up with a Shock Incarceration graduate. Mr. Richard Roman is presently twenty-nine years old.

At the age of twenty- four he was sentenced to a two to four, for possession of a control substance and direct sale of a control substance. The state of New York offered him the program after serving four months of his term. He was sent to Moriah Shock Incarceration. His daily schedule consisted of physical workout, work, and school/drug program, (example of a schedule given previously). His contact with the outside world was limited to Sunday, very other Sunday he would have a visit, on Sunday without a visit he was entitled to a one phone with three attempts to contact someone.

This he feels one the only problem the program has, it does not provide inmates with enough contact with the outside world. He was required to attend drug rehabilitation programs three times a week alternating with school. Mr. Roman states that many of the inmates had problems with much of the staff, he says he felt they were prejudice. Out of twenty DI (Drill Instructor) maybe two did their job correctly. He also states he had continuos ‘ problem with one particular DI he later named DI-50.

The drill instructor always failed him with a grade of fifty even though his job was done correctly every single time. He feels the program is worth every single moment spent there he learned responsibility, time management, and manual labor he could one day benefit from. His program was one hundred and eighty-four days exactly, and he would do it again if he had to, but only if he had no other choice. He does feel the program is rehabilitative and the program has many tools to offer, it is effective if you want it to work for yourself, if not you’ll just end up doing the same things all over gain.

The shock program has saved the government millions of dollars throughout the years, it has also proven to be very effective in reducing the number of offenders returning to jail. The program uses several different methods to attain its goal, the interview with Mr. Roman has demonstrated how effective the program has turned out to be. Mr. Roman was never arrested again. He finished the aftercare portion of the program and probation set forth by the division of parole. These are the goals of the program, to keep young offenders out of jail and to help them become law-abiding citizens.

In July of 1994, a little girl named, Megan Kanka, was raped and strangled. They found her body near her home in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. The story of thing young girl has shocked the nation. The man responsible for this brutal act is named, Jesse Timmendequas. He had been convicted twice prior to this attack. He also served six years in a treatment facility and had been released. Many people said that he was a quiet man, and this left them to think he was harmless. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case.

This sex offender lived in the same town, as a matter of act, he lived across the street from the Kanka family. This man was not ready to be released at all. In fact, he shouldn’t have been released. This only left him more of an opportunity to stike again. This information brought the people of Hamilton Township to pass around a petition. The petition stated that a state law be passed informing the citizens of their community that such people live amongst them. This isn’t a rare request. In fact, there have been numerous attempts to bring this law into affect.

This should have been done from the beginning, ut some people actually think these sex offenders have rights. Well, the people of Hamilton Township didn’t agree. They felt that they should have been told that this sex offender lived within their neighborhood. “The real issue isn’t that the people of Hamilton Township were denied information on this sex offender, but why was this man released after only six years of treatment when there were two prior convictions for sexually assaulting young girls? ” Decter, pg. 1} There should be a longer sentence for these offenders.

Because it is such a terrible and scarring experience for hose who survive it, these people shouldn’t be able walk freely and live a normal life. These kids have to live with it for the rest of their lives. It causes them to lose trust in people. We want our youth to be strong and loving, not scared and traumatized. These sex offenders should never forget the crime that they committed. They should not only do the time in jail, but they should also do the time out of jail. They should feel like victims for the rest of their lives, and if the community feels like having these people exposed, then so be it!

Megan’s mother stated, “If the amily had been told that Jesse Timmendequas was their neighbor, the girl would never have been allowed anywhere near the neighbors. ” Ahearn, pg. 1} Those who commit this crime, after knowing about Megan’s Law, should face more of a penalty. They know the consequences that they must face. Those who committed the crime before Megan’s Law was enacted, are also on the exposed list. News organizations should also print or air the names and addresses of those with records of passed and present convictions. We should have no mercy on them just like they have no mercy on our oung.

This isn’t a punishment, but a service to our community. These sex offenders have three different categories that they are sorted into. Most are Tier One or Tier Two, warranting notification of local police or schools. But for the dangerous Tier Three guys, like Jesse Timmendequas, the law says neighbors should also be informed. So why do these offenders still commit the crime? Some say that this additional punishment is unconstitutional, but what people don’t realize is that they are the minority in this case. The majority of people do believe that it is onstitutional.

According to Linda Meilink, a managing editor of Paradise Post in Northern California, she states, “Too often in this country we have been in the business of salvation. We think everything can be fixed I believe people change, I believe in good things happening but I believe in protecting children. ” Sheppard,pg. 3} You see, the Post would put the “top ten” names of the sexual offenders on the front page. Linda doubted the benefits that this would have had until she saw one of her staff member’s name on the list. She was shocked. She soon fired him.

Some may say that this guy deserved a second chance, but what if he was a Tier Two or a Tier Three? A police officer told Linda Meilink that “high risk child molesters strike again 90% of the time. ” pg. 1} We can’t ignore that. This isn’t a case of discrimination. People often wonder about having children in the kind of world where people like Jesse Timmendequas can still live amongst them. According to the Bergen Record, in February of 98 alone there were 563 offenders released and 46 being Tier Three. Ahearn, pg 2} Forty-six seem like a small number, but what about the rest that are Tier Two’s?

They get to roam around the areas that our children run and play in. A place we call home is no longer a safe place because of these discusting criminals. They shouldn’t have a second chance after the first time committing this crime. Personally, I think that they should get the death penalty. To let them out after the first time is enough of a chance. It might sound cruel to some people, but I think that if they were to put themselves in the shoes of those parents who lost or had their children be victims of this crime then they can be able to see the importance of keeping our eighborhood as safe and sound as we could.

Thank God for Megan’s Law. It is fair to everyone. The only issue that bothers me is the fact that those 90 percent, as I mentioned earlier, will most likely strike again. I think we should be notified the first time. This, at least, will enable us to be more careful. It also would make the community look out for other people’s children. The one thing that Mrs. Kanka said that really stuck in my mind was, “I can say that at least with our involvement, we will have made a difference for another family out there.

In the May 1993 issue of the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, the introduction of the reconceptualized deterrence theory was presented, explaining that general and specific deterrence are both functions of crime. Mark C. Stafford, an Associate Professor of Sociology and Associate Rural Sociologist at Washington State University, and Mark Warr, an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas in Austin, introduced this theory.

They argued that there is no reason to have multiple theories for general and specific deterrence. Rather, a single theory is possible that centers on indirect experience with legal punishment and punishment avoidance and direct experience with legal punishment and avoidance. 1 General deterrence includes the knowledge of criminal acts performed by others and the consequences or absence of consequences from the activity.

Specific deterrence relies upon personal experience of punishment and the avoidance of punishment for a criminal activity previously committed. Both Stafford and Warr theorized that people are exposed to both types of deterrents, with some people exposed to more of one type than the other. In addition both general and specific deterrence effects may coincide with each other and act as reinforcement. In the May 1995 issue of the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency a preliminary test was conducted on Stafford and Warr’s deterrence theory.

Raymond Paternoster and Alex Piquero, both professors in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, attempted to elaborate on Stafford and Warr’s original findings. They, Paternoster and Piquero, argued that although they could find some support for the basic features of the deterrence theory, there was still a significant component that Paternoster and Piquero could not address. Without being able to measure the consequences of the illegal behavior of their respondents’ peers, they could not separate the effects of indirect punishment avoidance from indirect punishment.

Furthermore, they claimed that the personal experience of punishment had a definite role in substance abuse, as well as leading to additional criminal activities because of formal sanctions. Stafford and War’s deterrence theory provides a valuable insight into the mind of criminal or would-be criminal for the sake of determining deterrence from criminal activities. Strong arguments and logical reasoning are the foundations that their theory is built on, bolstered with their own personal knowledge of the subject matter, making it a sound argument.

Paternoster and Piquero provide data from a well though out experiment that supports the deterrence theory. However, their insufficiency of much needed data to examine a major part of the theory, and the fact that they have only conducted a preliminary test of the theory, leave them open to the possibility of errors. Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence evaluates the premise that the rate of crime in any population is a function of both general and specific deterrence.

Using empirical data deprived from their own practical experience, as well as from the observations and experiments of their other colleagues in their field, they attempt to establish their theory of the reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. First, it is important to understand the background of their work and the foundation of deterrence. There are two types of deterrence, general and specific. In analyzing the deterrent effects it is highly important to distinguish between general and specific deterrence, because they are very different. General deterrence refers to the effects of legal punishment on the general public (i. , potential offenders), specific deterrence pertains to the effects of legal punishment on those who have suffered it. 3

Both kinds of experience rely upon individuals to have some degree of knowledge or experience with the justice system’s punishment to dissuade them from committing criminal acts. For members of the general public (general deterrence) it is indirect experience with punishment (observing or otherwise having knowledge of the punishment of others) that deters, whereas for punished offenders (specific deterrence) it is direct (personal) experience.

Within general deterrence, two types of people can be found that must be taken into consideration. Stafford and Warr used the findings of J. P. Gibbs, author of “Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence” for the Social Science Quarterly, to examine these two types of people. The first are those who have never committed or have taken part in any criminal activity, excluding those wrongfully punished for crimes they did not commit. The second type of person is one who has attempted or successfully completed a crime and has avoided legal consequences.

In relation to cause and effect, while the first type of person has had no direct experience with legal punishment, the effect on the second type of person is that he or she has gained valuable insight on avoiding sanctions by the justice system. It is a factor that may lead to the possibility of committing future crimes, making it a crucial factor of the deterrence theory. Individuals who avoid punishment or have little experience with it may begin to assume that they are not susceptible to punishment. Perhaps the greatest value of the concept is that it underscores the fundamental principle that no criminal act is without consequences.

Most specific deterrence studies rely upon examining the punished offender and post-punishment offending to determine a level of deterrence from crime. A major argument, again, is that this procedure ignores the probability of someone being punished while having knowledge of punishment from the experiences of others. 6 An individual punished for one crime may know others who have: (a) committed the same crime and avoided punishment, (b) committed the same crime and received a smaller punishment, or (c) committed the same crime and received a harsher sanction.

Stafford and Warr’s argument is that deterrence from crime will rely solely upon the individual’s knowledge. The general public and punished offenders have a combination of both general and specific experience with punishment and punishment avoidance. Take, for example, an offender who is caught and punished for crime type A, but has avoided punishment for crime types B, C, and D. The effects of punishment avoidance and indirect experience with punishment must be taken into consideration when determining the offender’s future behavior.

Put quite simply, the direct experience from crime type A cannot be the only factor used to predict the offender’s future behavior. Crime types B, C, and D must also be included along with crime type A. Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence states that the rate of crime in virtually any population will be a function of both general and specific deterrence. 7 It provides many advantages over the system currently in use. First, both general and specific deterrence can be used on any given population of people.

Secondly, a clear distinction is made between those being punished and those avoiding punishment. Thirdly, it is compatible with the contemporary learning theory with the difference between observational/vicarious learning and experiential learning. 8 It should be noted, however, that most of their conclusions are drawn from supported opinions instead of fact. While supported opinions have more credibility than unsupported opinions; it cannot turn an opinion into fact. Most of their work is based on empirical data from their own practical experience along with the experience of their colleagues.

Most of their reasoning was based on deductive reasoning, where they began with their general proposition and established a chain of reasoning that lead to their conclusion. In the tradition of deductive reasoning, they began with the major premise that the rate of crime in virtually any population would be a function of both general and specific deterrence. Next, the minor premise, presents a specific example of the belief that is stated in the major premise, which is that people have a mixture of general and specific deterrence with punishment and punishment avoidance.

Though they used supported opinion, their reasoning is sound, so the conclusion naturally follows from the two premises. Both general and specific deterrence can operate for any given person in any given population, providing one theory of deterrence, eliminating the possibility of overlooking critical issues. The tone of the overall argument suggests a rational appeal to the reader, due to the lack of such fallacies as an argument to the people and the bandwagon effect. One fallacy that might be applicable is a hasty generalization of their theory.

Stafford and Warr’s conclusions appear to be based on too little evidence; in addition, they have not substantially tested their theory. Other than the detection of this one fallacy, their overall argument is a sound and relatively rational one. Stafford and Warr commented on a very strong variable, which is associated with crime, peer involvement. People who have friends who committed criminal acts displays a behavior that mirrors indirect experience with punishment and punishment avoidance. It may affect the certainty of sanctions, because the person will have access to the knowledge of their friends who have direct experience.

In addition, peers provide a larger wealth of knowledge on punishment and punishment avoidance to an individual than that individual would have from his or her own experiences. It is this which will determine whether or not an individual will be deterred from a criminal act or not, by allowing the individual to asses the efficiency of law enforcement. Stafford and Warr are quick to point out that their theory has shown that a complex experimental examination is needed to test the effects of indirect and direct experience with punishment and punishment avoidance. This maybe a more important issue as far at the deterrence theory is concerned.

Paternoster and Piquero conducted preliminary testing on the main components of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Through their testing, they have confirmed many of Stafford and Warr’s speculations, on both general and specific deterrent effects on a person’s view of sanctions, and the inhibiting effect caused by them. In addition, they discovered that substance abuse was directly related to those previously sanctioned as a result of their delinquency. Unlike Stafford and Warr, Paternoster and Piquero used inductive reasoning instead of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusions.

They drew their conclusions based on specific facts and observations made from their experiments, unlike Stafford and Warr’s use of supported opinions. It should be noted that an inductive conclusion is never certain, only probable, and it relies on an inferencea conclusion about the unknown based on the known. Their data came from an experiment in the form of a questionnaire, administered to all 10th grade students in nine high schools in and around an anonymous southeastern city in the United States during the fall of 1981, consisting of 2,700 students.

Approximately one year later an identical questionnaire was administered to the same students, now juniors. It measured the student’s direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance as well as the risk or certainty of the threat of sanctions for oneself and for others. Students were tested on their perceived threat of sanctions, asking the likely hood of them being caught for underage drinking and marijuana use. The two delinquent offenses were combined into one scale, measuring the perceived risk to oneself.

Within the same category of perceived threats of sanctions, students were to estimate out of 100 people, the number who would be arrested in their town for the same two offenses. Again, the responses for both crimes were combined into one composite scale. The students’ experience with punishment and punishment avoidance was measured on a point system. A student started with zero points and added one point for each of the following: being apprehended by police, taken to a police station, arrested, or taken to juvenile court.

A score of zero means the student had no experience with punishment from the criminal justice system; a score of four meant the student had been apprehended by police, taken to a police station, arrested, and has been juvenile court. Punishment avoidance measured the number of times the student committed the two delinquent offenses, minus the number of times they reported being caught for such crimes. Therefore, it reflects the number of times that drugs and alcohol were used without apprehension or sanction. 10

The indirect experience with punishment and punishment avoidance variable tested the knowledge of the students’ peers in criminal activity and the punishment experiences. A major shortcoming was that the separation of indirect experience of punishment and punishment avoidance was impossible to obtain with their data. Therefore, the level of experience with a student’s peer in terms of punishment and punishment avoidance could not be calculated. Instead, Paternoster and Piquero were forced to measure only the extent to which respondent’s peers were involved in drinking and marijuana use.

It must be noted that this may cause errors in their empirical data. Peer involvement was measured by asking respondents to report the proportion of their friends who drink liquor and use marijuana. 11 As before, liquor and marijuana use was combined into one composite scale to publicize the majority of friends who use alcohol and drugs. Paternoster and Piquero attempted to expand Stafford and Warr’s theory by suggesting that three other personal experiences influence perceptions of the risk of punishment for one’s self and others.

These three experiences would be (a) the amount of informal surveillance one experiences, (b) one’s moral evaluation of each act, and (c) the closeness of emotional bonds with conventional others. 12 Informal surveillance is provided by the parents, who may or may not develop a higher perception of risk, depending upon the level of surveillance provided by the parents. The system used to test the students’ level of informal surveillance consisted of a two-item question. First, they were asked if their parents knew where they were and whom they were with outside of their home.

High scores meant there was strict supervision while low scores reflected low supervision. Moral evaluation of a criminal act asked the students to state whether they saw underage drinking and marijuana use as morally wrong. The question was based on a five point system, with answers ranging from never wrong to always wrong. Answers containing a high score reflected those students who expressed a higher level of morality. The closeness of emotional bonds to others, argues Paternoster and Piquero, will also determine the likely hood of committing criminal acts.

They hypothesized that the moral beliefs of one’s friends might constitute a kind of indirect moral barometer that would affect both the perceived risk to others and self. 13 Measuring the friends’ beliefs was based on a five point system, asking if their friends would approve or disapprove of their use of alcohol and marijuana. A high score meant there was a high degree of peer support for substance abuse, while a low score meant peer support for substance abuse was low. Approximately one year later a second questionnaire was administered to the same students, nearly identical to the first.

The students were asked the number of times they had consumed alcohol or smoked marijuana within the last twelve months. These two behaviors correspond to those referenced in the scales of measuring moral beliefs, friends’ beliefs about substance abuse, friends’ behavior, perceived risk to self, and perceived risk to others. Because the measure of self-reported substance at Time 2 was positively skewed, with a small percentage of youths reporting very high frequencies, higher frequencies were truncated to the frequency corresponding to the 90th percentile. 14

The results of Paternoster and Piquero’s testing have been divided into three segments, each discussing the various findings of the reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. These three segments explain the findings on the operation of general and specific deterrence, the differential impact of direct and indirect experience, and the interaction of direct and indirect experience. An unexpected result was that substance abuse was directly related to those who had been previously apprehended by law enforcement and sanctioned as a result of their delinquency.

Lawrence Sherman, author of the “Defiance, Deterrence, and Irrelevance: A Theory of the Criminal Sanction” for the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, explains what she calls the defiance effect of sanctions. This is where the offender feels that the punishment administered is unfair, either due to a procedural or substantive element. In accordance with the cause and effect relationship, the result is an offender who feels anger and shame and responds with further defiance. However, Paternoster and Piquero note, most of the juveniles in their sample who were punished did not respond with further defiance.

Other results have confirmed that punishment avoidance has a positive effect on substance abuse, which induces (a) a self-perceived reduced risk of sanctions on oneself, (b) a weakening of moral beliefs, (c) parental surveillance, (d) and emotional bonds, (e) while strengthening delinquent bonds, (f) and encouraging future use if not caught. Consistent with the general deterrent effect, a person’s indirect experience with a peer’s behavior has a reverse effect on both perceptions of risk and beliefs.

A person’s friend who uses illegal substances is more likely to start using than if his or her friend did not use drugs. It is quite conclusive that the test results confirm that deterrence involves both general and specific deterrence. Stafford and Warr are correct in suggesting that the inhibiting effect of perceived sanction threats involves both general and specific deterrence mechanisms. 15 Direct and indirect experience makes the individual’s compulsion to commit crimes strong or weak, depending upon their experiences, and how they perceive the risks to themselves and others.

The differential impact of direct and indirect experience determined the likeliness that indirect experiences will influence individuals who lack direct experience. By analyzing the data received from the questionnaires, there is enough evidence to support the idea that those who have little direct experience will have stronger amounts of indirect experience, and vice versa. Therefore, general deterrence tends to be more associated with those who have less experience, while specific deterrence is more closely associated with those who have more experience.

Stafford and Warr’s hypothesis about the differential impact of direct and indirect experiences seems to hold true. The interaction of direct and indirect experience contemplates whether or not Stafford and Warr’s theory that direct and indirect experience affect an individual’s perception of risk above their respective separate effects is correct or not. 16 The result is that if a person receives a continuos message that the risk of a crime is minimal, that person will have lower estimates of the certainty of punishment for themselves than those who receive either mixed messages, or consistent messages that substance use is risky.

Paternoster and Piquero’s overall testing of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence has proved that their theory holds true to some degree. People are indeed affected by a mixture of both general and specific deterrence, with either one being used more so than the other depending upon the experience level of each individual. However, without being able to calculate the level of experience with a student’s peer in terms of punishment and punishment avoidance allows errors to develop that might prejudice their conclusions.

Those who have less experience tend to be affected by general deterrence, while those having a high level of experience are more so affected by specific deterrence. Unexpectedly they found a direct link to the substance abuse by those previously sanctioned, and concluded that they are likely to commit future acts of delinquency. These insights will shed more light into disentangling deterrence from defiance, making it a new and important area of research.

Stafford and Warr used deductive reasoning for their deterrence theory, supporting their findings with supported opinions from themselves and other colleagues in their field. While the opinions come from credible people with vast knowledge in their area of study, it does not displace the reality that an opinion can never be fact. By using a rational tone instead of an emotional one, Stafford and Warr did create sound arguments about the reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence, despite having a logical fallacy in their overall work.

By only including empirical data from personal experiences and observations from others, they lack the sufficient evidence to support their claim. This is known as a hasty generalization; when little evidence is used to defend an argument. At no point in Stafford and Warr’s conclusion did they ever use faulty analogies, stereotypes, or oversimplified the issues at hand. To do so would invalidate their work. In spite of some shortcomings, Stafford and Warr have made a convincing statement of their theory.

Paternoster and Piquero tested Stafford and Warr’s theory by using inductive reasoning, basing their conclusions on observed facts and hard evidence obtained from their experiment, unlike Stafford and Warr. The experiment was well though out, covering many diverse areas pertaining to general and specific deterrence. While examining the obtained data, Paternoster and Piquero were able to find evidence to support Stafford and Warr’s theory while discovering that people previously sanctioned are more likely to commit further acts of delinquency.

The shortcoming of the experiment was that it could not separate the indirect experience of punishment and punishment avoidance. Instead, Paternoster and Piquero measured the extent to which the students’ peers used alcohol and marijuana. This could cause the possibility of errors within their findings, making their conclusion inaccurate. In defending their finding that people previously sanctioned will tend to commit further delinquent acts, Paternoster and Piquero used an effective cause and effect scheme as well as using the works of Sherman to prove their point.

As with Stafford and Warr, Paternoster and Piquero did not prejudice their research with any faulty analogies or stereotypes. Though these are preliminary tests, their use of a rational tone supported by clear and accurate evidence suggest they are correct in their findings. Stafford and Warr presented their theory of reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence, and Paternoster and Piquero attempted to confirm it by an experiment. The conclusions of both groups were faulty in some areas, but strong in others.

However, both groups did an excellent job in determining if the crime rate of a population is a combination of both general and specific deterrence. Where one group was lacking, the other group was able to confirm this theory. Though further testing needs to establish if this theory is correct, it will provide a single theory for deterrence, eliminating the possibility of accidentally excluding essential issues, and provide more resources to those trying to distinguish between deterrence and defiance.

Criminal law and criminology have, for the past several years, been confronted with a problem that reaches the very foundations and basic philosophies underlying the study and treatment of social offenders. Simply, the controversy revolves about the question; Shall the main concern underlying penal treatment be the matter of the offense committed, or the person offending? Representing the extreme positions in both points of view,– generally designated as Classical and Positive,– the conflict between the legal profession and psychiatry has later emerged.

About the middle of the 18th century there began to arise a philosophical school, led by Rousseau and Bentham, which emphasized the rationality of man, hedonism, and the social contract theories. These philosophical principles drew attention to the great injustices and inequities that prevailed in the legal system. As a result, great protest was set up, which led to what has come to be known as the Classical School of criminology. The rise of the Classical School is most closely associated with the Italian, Cesare Beccaria.

His book Crimes and Punishments, published in 1764 is usually considered the foundation-stone of the Classical doctrine of punishment. His words were motivated by a passion for human equality and liberty. His book was not a program of a contemplated new school of punishment, but was essentially a protest. A protest against obscurity and uncertainty of the law; against secret accusations and torture; against the abuse of power by the pardoning power, and against numerous minor abuses.

He urged that legislators, not judges, should make the laws; that laws should be clear, so that each man would know what punishment to expect for each crime, regardless of status; that certainty and promptness rather than severity in punishment be made the deterrent factor, and he urged that punishments be made public. Only part of Beccarias ideas were adopted by Classical penology. The French Code of 1791 attempted to apply Beccarias principle of equal punishment for the same crime.

It adopted his suggestion that crime should be arranged on a scale, that to each crime the Italian or the Positivist School, and its most distinguished representatives were Lombroso, Ferri, and Garofalo. Lombroso had been educated for medicine. As an army doctor he had used his leisure time by making a series of studies of the Italian soldier. He was struck by the fact that the vicious soldier was distinguished from the honest soldier by the extent to which the former was tattooed and the indecency of the design.

Later, while working in Italian prisons, Lombroso was designated to make the post mortem examination of a famous criminal. On opening the skull, he found on the interior of the lower back part, a distinct depression which characteristic he knew was to be found in lower animals, especially rodents. This was a revelation to him: I seemed to see, all of a sudden the nature of the criminal,– an atavistic being who represents in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals.

Lombrosos theories later underwent several changes, but at this early stage he considered the criminal a distinct type by birth. He said they had certain physical anomalies which showed that they were either a reversion to a savage type, or a degenerate of the epileptoid type. Criminality was thought to be inherited, and Lombroso claimed that the born criminal could not refrain from crime unless the environmental circumstances of his life were unusually favorable. Lombrosos conception of the physical criminal type was later definitely disproved by Charles Goring by an anthropological study of 3000 English convicts.

A younger member of the Italian School was Enrico Ferri, who contributed an emphasis upon the social factors, and gathered together and placed in logical form the various factors which enter into the making of a criminal. These in Ferris presentation are three; the physical factors, the anthropological, and the social factors. Garofalo, the third of the three great founders of the Italian School, stressed the study of the criminal nature, and of the circumstances under which a criminal lived.

The criminal was considered, not as a free moral agent, but the product of his traits and circumstances. Despite the vagaries which characterize the Positive School, the study of the criminal in the light of his individual characteristics played upon the environment, rather than a free moral agent who chooses to commit an act injurious to society, has greatly affected criminology. Further development of the Positive theory has led to Boners view of the economic determination of crime, and to the view of the dynamic psychiatrists.

The Positive School would not hold the individual responsibility for crime, since they are determined by forces beyond his control. The old objects of punishment have been severely altered. Criminals are to be treated, not punished. Reformation is to be applied with discrimination to the various classes of criminals. Prevention of crime by discovering as early as possible those with characteristics likely to lead to delinquency, altering the external conditions which make for crime, and throwing around each person the influences which make for social behavior, is receiving primary emphasis.

The shift from individual to social responsibility for crime has also resulted in the rise of Juvenile Courts, indeterminate sentences, probation, parole, education and recreation in prisons, and wider attempts at social control of crime. Unfortunately the actual practice in the administration of the criminal law has not followed the systems outlined above. There are three conflicting tendencies in the law today. There is a tendency toward increasing severity.

This is shown in the increased length of prison sentences for certain offenses, increased use of death penalty, increased severity toward habitual criminals, and the opposition to probation and parole laws. On the other hand, there is also a tendency toward pressure for more human treatment. This is shown in the substitution of summonses for arrests in many cases, the general improvement of prisons, and the payments of wages to prisoners. The third tendency is that toward the adjustment of treatment to individual needs, as illustrated by the results produced by the Positive School.

Our law is not opposed to all of these views, but has in effect and practice, opposed very many of them. The conflicting statutes within the law itself decrease the respect on the part of the public for the law, and rocks the foundations of legal authority. The question of responsibility need not be brought up at all, unless as a question of educability. That is, the problem for the psychiatrist to solve. What are the potentialities for future adjustment to the normal social code? There is no ultimate underlying principle behind the determination of responsibility.

It will be determined by definite criteria of social deviation, changing as dynamic society changes. The criteria of normality and the sentiment of justice are solely dependent upon the social group, and are a product of group norms. There is no value in considering abstract :responsibility per se, it must resolve itself into the problem of determining future behavior which will affect society on one way or another. If the potentialities for adjustment seem favorable, the necessary treatment will be rendered; if not, the person must be isolated from the social group.

A larger problem has now been raised. It is the problem of prognosis. It is in this larger problem that the socially useless question of responsibility must lose itself. Even though we may have a more difficult task before us, if we have lost the problem we started with, I believe something has been gained. [BACK TO MAIN PAGE] Classical criminology grew out of a reaction against the barbaric system of law, justice and punishment that was in existence before 1789. It sought an emphasis on free will and human rationality.

The Classical School was not interested in studying criminals, but rather law-making and legal processing. Crime, they believed, was activity engaged in out of total free will and that individuals weighed the consequences of their actions. Punishment is made in order to deter people from committing crime and it should be greater than the pleasure of criminal gains. Classical theory emphasized a legal definition of crime rather than what defined criminal behavior. The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution reflect the Classical movement, thus the law of today is classical in nature.

Two famous writers during this classical period were Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), both led the movement to human rights and free will. Becceria thought that crime could be traced to bad laws, not to bad people. A new modern criminal justice system would be needed to guarantee equal treatment of all people before the law. His famous book, On Crimes and Punishment presented a new design for the criminal justice system that served all people. His book dubbed him the “father of modern criminology. ” Bentham’s concern was upon utilitarianism which assumed the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

He believed that individuals weigh the probabilities of present and future pleasures against those of present and future pain. Thus people acted as human calculators, he believed, and that they put all factors into a sort of mathematical equation to decide whether or not to commit an illegal act. He believed then that punishment should be just a bit in excess of the pleasures derived from an act and not any higher than that. The law exists to create happiness for all, thus since punishment creates unhappiness it can be justified if it prevents greater evil than it produces.

As his family’s month-long vacation to Italy approached, seven year-old Nicholas Green became increasingly excited about the trip. The rosy-cheeked second grader devoured books on Roman history. He announced that Julius Caesar was his new hero. Nicholas showed great interest in the Greek and Roman myths that his mother, Maggie, read to him, particularly the one about Persephone. She was the young goddess kidnapped by the King of the Underworld but, because of her mothers grief allowed to return to earth for a few months each year.

The idea of a sad little person below the ground and the joy of coming back again, he seemed to get the idea of rebirth in an adult way” recalled his father Reginal Green. For the Green family the tale would soon seem bitterly poignant. On September 29, 1994, as the Greens from Bodega Bay, California drove at night along a desolate highway in southern Italy with Nicholas and his little sister, Eleanor; a small light colored car overtook them. Two men inside, their faces hidden by kerchiefs houted in Italian and gestured for Reginal Green to pull over.

When Green fearing for his family, didn’t, the men open fire. Little Nicholas, who was sleeping on the back seat, was struck in the head with a bullet. He died in the hospital two days later. As a nation, all of Italy was horrified by the crime then deeply moved by the Greens unexpected response. Rather than reacting with justifiable bitterness, Reginal and Maggie Green donated their son’s organs to seven Italians. If this were your child what would you do?

Organ and tissue transplantation is one of this century’s medical triumphs. It has become a routine practice that can dramatically improve and save the lives of those suffering from vital organ failure, or those suffering from bone defects, burns and blindness. Since the first successful transplant of a human heart over 40 years ago, the demand for organs has greatly exceeded the supply. About 40,000 Americans are awaiting organ donations, but fewer than half will get them.

One of the weak links in the U. S organ transplant system is the large and growing gap between the number of people seeking transplant surgery and the number of available organs. An estimated nine Americans a day die while waiting for a transplant. But you could help. Anyone can be an organ donor. Just by making your wishes known to your family, you can become an organ and tissue donor. Old age or a history of disease does not mean you can’t donate. Organ and tissue that can’t be used for transplants can often be used to help scientists find cures for serious illness. Many organs and tissues can be donated.

The heart, lungs, kidneys, and pancreas as well as corneas, bone, shin heart valves, and blood vessels are some of the organs and tissues that can be used to help improve the quality of life for people needing transplants and other surgical procedures. Signing a donor card will not affect the care you receive at the hospital. If you are injured and brought to an emergency room, you will receive the best possible care, whether or not you are an organ donor. The organ transplant system is fair. The distribution of donated organs allows equal access for all patients awaiting a transplant in the United States.

The national Transplant Act mandated the establishment of a national computer system for organ sharing that is based on the need availability. Major religions support organ and tissue donation. Many faiths openly encourage it, seeing this as a final act of giving. The act of giving is exactly what the Greens did by donating Nicholas’ organs. “His future was taken away from him. We thought it was very important to give his future to someone who had lost theirs” said Reginal Green. In the days following Nicholas’ death, organ donation in Italy increased 400 percent.

The Country’s Consul General told the Green family, ” You made a miracle. For seven very fortunate Italians, the Greens gift may mean just that. Nicholas’ liver when to a 19-year old Sicilian woman who was within 48 hours of death. . “We’d given up on her,” said her Doctor”She is now a vivacious beauty who turns heads as she walks down the street. ” An 11-year-old boy and 14 -year-old girl each received one of Nichols’ kidneys. A 30-year-old mother with diabetes got islet cells from Nicholas’ pancreas to help her body produce insulin. The man who received one of Nicholas’ corneas said that at one time he was unable to see his children.

Now after the operation, he happily watches his son and daughter play. But the recipient most in need of a transplant was the 60-pound 15-year-old boy who received Nicholas’ heart. This boy who had spent half his life in hospitals; is now a relentless bundle of energy. In a letter to the Journal of American Medicine Reginal Green wrote ” Donating Nicholas organs, then, wasn’t a particularly noble act. But not to have given them would have seemed to us such a waste that we don’t believe we could have thought of it later without a sense of shame.

The future of a radiant little creature had been taken away. It was important to us that someone else should have that future. ” Reginal Green goes on to say ” I don’t believe Maggie and I will ever really be happy again, even our best moments are tinged with sadness. ” “But the joy in seeing so much life that otherwise have been lost, and the relieve on the families faces, is so uplifting that it has given us some compensation for what otherwise would have been just a random act of violence. ”

The most precious gift you can give someone is the gift of life itself. I’m sure most have heard this saying before that is exactly what you do when you become an organ and tissue donor. Yet the simple truth is that there is not enough people who are making this life giving choice. Every year more and more children and adults are forced to wait and hope for a chance to live a normal healthy life. But you can help, when you make the decision to become an organ donor you are providing mothers, fathers, sons and daughters with a second chance for a normal healthy life.

Murder is the most vindictive crime society can commit. As individuals in society, the belief of being born a murderer is false. No one is born a murderer; society gives birth to that murderer. In Ted Bundy’s case the lack of parental guidance and constant rejection of women contributed to him evolving into a vicious serial killer. Bundy was a man who let his fantasies run his life, he believed that life was a game. All this contributed to making Bundy revengeful, bitter, and not quite mentally stable.

Bundy took countless numbers of young female lives in the 70’s. This man seemed to have a highly unstable personality and was often confused in life, some have suggested that, “Bundy was insane and that he should have been in a mental institution. ” Bundy was executed in 1989 in Florida for his crimes, but the real question is what really made this vicious man tick? Ted Bundy went down in history as one of the most brutal serial killers of the 20th century (AP 10). Ted Bundy was born on November 24, 1946 in Burlington, Vermont in a home for unwed mothers.

His 22-year-old mother Eleanor Louise Cowell felt forced by the norms of society to have her parents raise Ted as their own and she portrayed herself to be her son’s older sister. As for Ted’s natural father Lloyd Marshall, who was an Air Force veteran was unknown to him throughout his life. When Ted turned four, his mother, Louise took him with her and moved to Tacoma, Washington where she married Johnnie Bundy. Ted Bundy felt nothing towards his stepfather, he was very bitter that he was forced to move across the continent from his grandfather, the only man he looked up to.

Although, a psychiatrist had concluded after talking with Bundy year’s later, that his grandfather was an abusive brute or even worse. As a young boy, Bundy had started becoming obsessed with females and obscure sexuality, “.. as a boy, he was already roaming his neighborhood and picking through trash barrels in search of pictures of naked women” (Davis. ) This seems to be the result of very poor to no parental guidance, he stated himself that he couldn’t talk to his parents about many things.

Ted Bundy had expressed feelings during an interview that, parental involvement and security is very important in a young child’s life and that he never had that protection. Bundy was very shy as a youth and he was often bullied in junior high, as a result of he was subjected to humiliation often. Even though he was subjected to this kind of behavior he managed to maintain a high grade average throughout his education. Many say that Bundy was a very successful, pleasant student. Bundy’s focus changed in the spring of 1967, when he met the woman of his dreams Stephanie Brooks. This relationship would change his life forever.

Stephanie was Bundy’s first love and he was infatuated with her to the point of obsession. Stephanie felt that Ted had no direction in his life and that he didn’t know what he wanted and where he was going. Which is what lead to their breakup. Bundy was extremely depressed over their breakup, and to make matters worse Bundy learned the true about his “sister”, that she was really his mother. This was in an addition to turning point in Bundy’s behavior. “During this time in his life Bundy became possessed of a kind of icy resolve”(Duijndam. ) Bundy went from a shy, sweet, and naive individual, to a dominant, focused, and revengeful person.

Although, Stephanie and Bundy kept close contact after their breakup and they visited often. Around 1972 Ted’s life seemed to emerge with higher hopes. Bundy sent out various applications for law schools and became involved in politics. Bundy was looked upon as a caring and respectful individual. “He was even commended by the Seattle police for saving the life of a three-year-old boy who was drowning in a lake” (Duijndam. ) In 1973 Bundy had met up with Stephanie Brooks once again. Stephanie noticed the Ted’s transformation resulting in a reconcile of their relationship.

Just as suddenly as their relationship was rekindled, it dissipated just as quick. Bundy had been plotting his revenge against Stephanie for a long time. He wanted to reject her the way she rejected him; he became cold to her and broke all contact off with her in February 1974. (Duijndam. ) This was just the beginning of Bundy’s revenge and vicious sexual fulfillment against society. The remains of Kathy Devine were found on December 6, 1973 which the police had immediately began an investigation. Shortly after the Devine attack, Lynda Ann Healy went missing.

During the spring and summer as many as seven female students went missing from the states of Utah, Oregon, and Washington. A pattern emerged from these mysterious disappearances; all the victims were white, thin, and single. The police interviewed various college students and some had stated that they had seen a strange man in the parking lot on campus that was wearing a cast and asking for assistance with starting his Volkswagen (VW) Bug. In August of 1974 in Lake Sammamish, Washington, the two girls were found and then identified from their remains, as Janice Ott and Denise Naslund.

Duijndam. ) Similarities between the murders in Utah and Oregon caught the attention of the local police in Utah, desperately searching for the person liable for these horrendous murders. Slowly the evidence was built with every murder; investigators concluded that the man who committed these murders in Utah was the same man in the other murders. Ted Bundy, pretended to be a police officer, approached Carol DaRonch one night. Bundy stated that he saw someone try to break in her car. Bundy escorted her into his VW Bug, took her to a remote area which, he stopped the vehicle (Larsen.

He put handcuffs on her and he threatened her with a gun, she managed to get away and escape with some people passing by in a car. Police found blood on the victim’s coat, which matched Bundy’s blood type. Later that same night the police had found a key in the parking lot where Debby Kent went missing. A month later a witness called in stating they saw a VW Bug speed away from a high school the night Kent disappeared. Bundy was arrested on August 16, 1975 caught speeding away with no lights on, in the Salt Lake neighborhood.

A search was conducted of the VW. There was no passenger seat, there were the handcuffs, a ski mask, and an ice pick and tape. The was connection was made to the previous attempted kidnappings, Bundy was convicted of the attempted kidnappings and sent to prison after DaRonch and a friend of Kent’s picked Bundy out of a lineup. Ted was eventually charged with the murders of Melissa Smith and Caryn Campbell when their bodies were found, Bundy was extradited. Bundy kept protesting his innocence and a full-blown investigation was conducted on Ted Bundy. Police then approached Stephanie Brooks for information on Ted Bundy.

She told them how Ted had abruptly changed his behavior toward her, how he became cold and insensitive. It seemed Bundy was living a double life filled of lies and betrayal. The evidence was building towards Bundy’s conviction. An old friend of Bundy’s had said he saw pantyhose in Ted’s car and that he spent a considerable amount of time up at Taylor Mountains where bodies of victims have been discovered. Another old friend of Bundy’s had reported that he saw him with a cast on, but no record of him ever breaking his arm in any hospital. On February 23, 1976 Bundy was put on trial for the kidnapping of DaRonch.

Bundy felt confident that there was no hard evidence to convict him, but he was wrong. DaRonch pointed to Bundy the man who portrayed himself to be “Officer Roseland” (Mellow 10. ) The judge reviewed the case and found Bundy guilty on aggravated kidnapping. Bundy was sentenced to fifteen years with the possibility for parole. Farther investigations had found that hairs from Campbell and Smith were found in Bundy’s VM Bug. This linked him to the murders of the two females, Bundy was moved to Garfield County Jail in Colorado in April of ’77 to await the murder trial of these two girls.

Bundy was granted permission to leave the confines of the jail on occasion and utilize the courthouse library in Aspen, to conduct legal research. In order to defend himself. What police didn’t know was that he was planning his escape”(Michaud. ) On June 7th during one of his trips to the library Ted jumped out the window and escaped to freedom. In this poor attempt, within six days Bundy returned to jail when caught trying to steal a vehicle in Aspen. However, seven months later he escaped again and fled to Florida.

Bundy changed his name to Chris Hagen and settled in an apartment in Tallahassee, Florida (Reinhold. ) Ted lived off of stolen credit cards for the time being. Bundy spent a considerable amount of time at the Chi Omega House on the university campus in Florida. On January 14th, after 3A. M. two sorority sisters were dead and three severely injured at the hands of Ted Bundy. The police were called and Bundy was eventually arrested again, “a college student pointed to Ted Bundy as the man who fled the Chi Omega House the night two women were killed and three others clubbed senseless.

Bundy faced three trials, all spaced in three years, but it was the Chi Omega trail that sealed his fate forever. Bundy acted as his own attorney in the Chi Omega trail, but was fighting an impossible battle. There were two events in the trial that swayed the jurors against Bundy. The testimony of Nita Neary, who pointed out Bundy as the man who fled the Chi Omega House the night of the murders. The other event that swayed the jury was the testimony of Odontologist, Dr. Richard Souviron. While on stand he described the bite mark injuries that were on Lisa Levy’s body.

The jury was shown the photographs of the bite marks taken the night of the murder. The doctor pointed out the uniqueness of the imprints on Levy’s body and the pictures of Bundy’s teeth; they matched perfectly. On July 23 Bundy was found guilty on all counts of murder and on July 31st, he was sentenced to die in the electric chair in Florida. Ted Bundy eventually confessed to about 28 murders of women. However, society believes the number is far greater. Bundy was executed on January 24, 1989. After almost a decade since, Bundy’s execution the horror of what this individual orchestrated lives on.

Bundy was deprived of security and guidance at a very young age and was subjected to constant rejection. Through those faults, he created an individual on his own. This individual could place barriers around himself alone, which eventually drove Ted to psychopathic behavior. Bundy had built all this anger inside and turned it on his biggest frustration and obsession, women. There are many more vindictive murderers out there like Bundy. Many years before, society had a difficult time tracking these murderers down and understanding them. Bundy was one of the first serial killers that allowed society to travel in the mind of a killer.

When one hears of a criminal who has committed a violent crime, one does not usually conjure up images of a person with whom he or she would like to spend a lot of time. This is because the person described is a criminal, one who has the mindset of committing a violent offense. No matter the age of the criminal, he or she would be nonetheless a rather unappealing companion. Violent crime is defined by the Department of Justice as homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, and assault. These are all actions that sound horrible and reap even more horrible consequences.

Unfortunately, there is a growing trend of juvenile violence; even children under 16 are committing these heinous acts. It is of my assertion that anyone who commits a violent crime needs to be prosecuted in the same manner, hence that minors must be prosecuted as adults. Juvenile crime is a serious and growing epidemic. The figures for juveniles committing crimes that are serious, heterogeneous, or non-serious mirror those of offenders between the ages of eighteen and twenty (U. S. Department of Justice/ FBI fact file). Any study can show the same facts- that youth violence and criminal acts are on the rise. These must be punished.

The causes or signs of risk of teen violence can be shown in many factors: violent media, bullying, depression, being an outcast, fascination with guns or death, societys opinion, and teenage mood swings. Individuals that exhibit these qualities very often commit violent crimes. These characteristics are that of personality, not necessarily able to be changed without a serious program (such as detention or prison). Also, these individuals are usually possessing motives when committing the crimes; if he or she has the adult mentality to do an adult crime, it is only logical and fair that he or she is punished likewise.

Though a juvenile may not understand their circumstances or not have full brain development, he or she is still capable of deciding right and wrong- every human has a moral code, even toddlers know this difference. Anyone, no matter the age, should receive an equalizing punishment for a violent crime. Such acts may not go unnoticed; the criminals must be dealt with in a legal manner. Prosecuting juveniles as adults for the violent crimes that they commit gives the best chance of issuing a sentence that is in accordance with the offense. All should be fair in love, war, crime, and punishment.

The Boston Strangler was probably the most notorious criminal that Boston, Massachusetts has ever known. But who was the Boston Strangler? Was he Albert DeSalvo, the person who confessed and went to jail for these crimes? Is he someone that took his secret to the grave and let an innocent man take the blame for his crime? Or is he still walking the streets of Boston, or even the streets of another city? We may never know for sure because based on all the evidence I’ve read, in my opinion Albert DeSalvo was not the famed Boston Strangler. The Boston Strangler reaked havoc on the city from June 1962 until January 1964.

He claimed the lives of thirteen women, ages ranging from 85 years old to 19 years old. The first victim had been raped and her bathrobe tie wrapped around her neck in a bow in June 1964. The next victim, was 85 year old Mary Mullen, she was not technically killed by the strangler, but rather a fatal heart attack when confronted by him. On June 30th, 1962, Helen Blake met death at the hands of the strangler. Next was 68 year old Nina Nichols. The fifth victim was 75 year old Ida Irga. On August 20th, 1962 Jane Sullivan had been raped and strangled with her nylons.

The only black woman to be killed by the hands of the Boston Strangler was Sophie Clark. On December 30th, 1962, 23 year old Patricia Bissette was killed. Then 68 year old Mary Brown met her fate. In August 1963, Beverly Samans met the strangler, she was stabbed instead of strangled and was not raped, but the police still thought it was the strangler’s work. The next victim was Evelyn Corbin . On November 11th 1963, Joann Graff was found raped and strangled in her apartment. But the Boston Strangler was getting sloppy, because he allowed himself to e seen.

A man that lived upstairs from Joann reported to police a man had knocked on the door across the hall from his and inquired about Ms. Graff, when he told the man where she lived he quickly left, but not without being seen. The final murder occurred on January 4th 1964. The victim was Mary Sullivan. She was the youngest of the strangler’s victims. Susan Kelly in The Boston Stranglers: The Public Conviction of Albert DeSalvo and the True Story of Eleven Shocking Murders makes a persuasive argument for DeSalvo being innocent of the strangling murders.

She cites a number of reasons why she and others still believed that DeSalvo was innocent. One of the strongest of these reasons is that there was “not one shred of physical evidence that connected him to any of the murders. ” Nor could any eyewitness place him at or even near any of the crime scenes. Albert had a relatively memorable face, particularly because of his prominent, beak-like nose. The Strangler (or Stranglers, since some experts believe that it had to be at least two different murderers and possibly more) was seen by a number of eyewitnesses. One was

Kenneth Rowe, the engineering student who lived on the floor above Joann Graffs apartment. He spoke to the stranger who was looking for her apartment just before she was killed. When Rowe was shown a photo of Albert DeSalvo, he did not recognize him as the man looking for Joann. Another point to make is serial killers tend to follow a pattern. The Boston strangler did not. He chose woman of all different ages and backgrounds, which leads me to believe that it was more than one person committing these crimes. No one can know for sure why DeSalvo would confess to crimes he didn’t commit, but one reason could e money.

When Albert was conferring with his lawyer, he asked him if confessing could bring money to his family by ways of books and interviews. His attorney said probably and Albert then quickly confessed. On the night before DeSalvo was killed by another inmate in prison, he called his attorney and told him he had something important to tell him and to come see him the next day. Unfortunately we will never know what Albert had to say, because he was stabbed through the heart and killed, but I think he wanted to tell his lawyer who the Boston Strangler really was.

Only Words, by Catharine MacKinnon is a collection of three essays; each essay argues her claim that sexual words and pictures should be banned instead of Constitutionally protected under the First Amendment as free speech. In her first essay, Defamation and Discrimination, MacKinnon takes the stance that pornography is sex, and should not be treated as speech, but as a sexist act. She claims that pornography is an action, just as, a sign saying White Only is only words, but it is seen as the act of segregation that it is.

MacKinnon claims that other action words, such as death threats, are banned, pornography should be banned as well. According to her essay, pornography rapes women. First, the photographers select already victimized women to be photographed, and thereby re-victimizing them. Then each man who views the pornography uses the ideas he attains from it to force his own sexual partner to perform the acts in the pornography. In the second essay, Racial and Sexual Harassment, MacKinnon states, if ever words have been understood as acts, it has been when they are sexual harassment.

She explains how written words can have the same effects on a reader as an action. They can evoke the same fear and violation as a physical threat of rape. In her final essay, Equality and Speech, MacKinnon suggests that the words as actions that she has describes in her previous essays should be subject to a group defamation lawsuit. She states that the Constitution protects speech that promotes sexual inequality. She feels that the Fourteenth Amendment should cover the discrimination allowed in the First Amendment.

Susan Estrichs Real Rape is an essay preaching proposed changes in rape statutes. Estrich first describes, in great detail, the history of rape legislation in England. She follows pertinent cases through history, citing changes and analyzing the effects of those changes. Estrich bases her findings on summaries, dissents, and other legal documentation. She then describes the current law, and evaluates how it has changed the way in which the court views rape. Throughout her essay, Estrich makes a distinction between classic rape and simple rape.

She defines the former as aggravated rape by a stranger, and the latter as rape by a date or acquaintance. Estrich focuses on simple rape for the majority of her thesis. To conclude, she proposes changes in the current law to make a simple rape conviction easier to attain for a truly victimized woman. Throughout the years, the legal definition of rape has been reworded, revised, and reworked. Even so, the definition current to Real Rape is lacking in many aspects. To understand the progression of the law, it is important to understand its foundation.

Modern rape legislation is still based upon the outdated opinions of Chief Justice Matthew Hale of England, who lived over three hundred years ago. His opinion is that rape is a charge easily to be made and hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused, tho never so innocent. (Estrich 5) This principle requires the victim of the rape to prove that she free of guilt in order to attain a conviction for her attacker. Based upon Hales position, rape has come to require proof of physical resistance on the part of the victim. The man must have used ample force, as well.

The law required corroboration on the victims testimony. A time limit was imposed on how long after the event a woman could report it. In addition, the victims sexual history could be submitted as evidence in order to discredit her, but the exposure of a mans past was rarely allowed. Most states also included a provision that protected a man from rape charges against his wife. In practice, these limits and restraints did not affect the conviction rates of stranger rape. Simple rape, however, has been extremely hard to prove. In cases of simple rape, if the jury decided to convict, the court of appeals usually overturned the decision.

In 1889, the Supreme Court of Nebraska reversed a conviction, reasoning that, voluntary submission by the woman, while she has the power to resist, no matter how reluctantly yielded, removes from the act an essential element of the crime of rape if the carnal knowledge was with the consent of the woman, no matter how tardily given, or how much force had theretofore been employed, it is no rape. (Estrich 29) Although rape is not the only crime to permit a consent defense, it is the only crime in which the victim must demonstrate nonconsent though physical force.

To add insult to injury, the woman must also prove that she not only used physical force, but that the physical force used was adequate to express her wishes. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin overturned a conviction of simple rape because the victim, in the eyes of the court, did not meet the standard for exercising adequate force. The court stated that, Not only must there be entire absence of mental consent or assent, but there must be the most vehement exercise of every physical means or faculty within the womans power to resist the penetration of her person, and this must be shown to persist until the offence is consummated.

Or, according to the courts of Texas, if she does not put forth all the power of resistance which she was capable of under the circumstances, it will not be rape. (Estrich 31) This standard of utmost resistance allowed for an acquittal, not by judging the man and finding his behavior legitimate, but by judging the woman and finding her conduct substandard. (Estrich 32) In general, the resistance requirement was only applied in appropriate relationships.

Thus, in a case of stranger rape, the woman was not required to show that she had performed the utmost resistance. In cases of simple rape, however, the resistance requirement was implemented, making it very difficult to prove. Evidentiary rules also allowed a conviction to be overturned. Corroboration of the victims testimony was a requirement in cases of simple rape. Some court required that every detail of the womans statement be corroborated. This requirement grew out of the belief that women are inherently incredible.

In simple rape, The inherently incredible standard, clearly rooted in Hales distrust, made corroboration most important precisely in the cases where resistance was most likely do be demanded,(Estrich 44) making the simple rape almost impossible to prove, due to the two stringent requirements of corroboration and adequate force. Since there are rarely witnesses to a rape, if corroboration of every element, including nonconsent, is required, it almost inevitably must consist of the bruises and torn clothing that physical resistance would produce.

The corroboration requirement protected the defendant and focused on the womans responsibility. If the case amounted to a confrontation of conflicting accounts the corroboration requirement is an attempt to skew resolution of such disputes in favor of the defendant. (Estrich 46) In cases of simple rape, inquiries into the sexual history of the woman shed a more favorable light on the defendant as well. It has been shown that the rape of an experienced woman is not seen to be as serious as that of a chaste woman.

Courts are aware of the prejudice that may develop due to evidence of sexual history, but it is only the past of the man that the court protects. In addition, a prior relationship between the victim and the defendant almost routinely downgrades the gravity of the assault. Another requirement exclusive to rape is that, a failure of the assaulted party to make complaint recently after the occurrence, opportunity offering itself, will cast a suspicion on the bona fides of the charge. (Estrich 53) This rule explicitly implies that women frequently charge a man with rape because they are vengeful.

According to one court, this rule that requires, in some cases, that the charge be filed no later than three months following the incident, is founded upon the laws of human nature. It is so natural as to be almost inevitable that a female upon whom the crime has been committed will make immediate complaint. (Estrich 54) Under law, a husband was unable to rape his wife. Rape was defined as intercourse with a woman not his wife. A husband could use, as much force or coercion as he pleased against his wife without subjecting himself to any possibility of a charge of rape.

This provision, in some circumstances, applied to a couple living as man and wife without actually being married. This idea stems from Hales time when a woman was seen as property of her husband, and women were forbidden to enter into contracts or own property. Even after the force requirement, the corroboration requirement, and the time limit, juries are frequently told that they must be especially suspicious of the woman because her emotional involvement may lead to difficulty in determining the truth. Juries may also be reminded that the man is in a very vulnerable position.

Over time, the standard became more relaxed, and by the 1950s, utmost resistance was no longer required. Instead, the court deemed that only reasonable resistance was necessary. Although this new standard made cases of simple rape easier to prove, it still required that the woman prove that her own conduct justified a rape conviction. A womans resistance against a single unarmed attacker must be, high enough to assure that the resistance is unfeigned and to indicate with some degree of certainty that the womans attitude was not one of ambivalence or unconscious compliance and that her complaints do not result from moralistic afterthoughts.

Because of the resistance requirement, a man was free to ignore the words of a woman, but resistance signifies that the woman truly did not want to engage in sex. After looking at the history of rape law, it is evident that changes must be made. In recent years, some of the strict requirements have been relaxed. For example, corroboration is usually not required, most states now have statutes in place that protect a woman from being required to expose her sexual past, and many states that had previously imposed a time limit for complaints no longer do so.

Some courts have now concluded that, in some situations, a man can be charged with raping his wife. In some jurisdictions, the definition of rape was changed to sexual intercourse where the man, compels her to submit by force or threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone. (Estrich 59) Thus, the focus was changed from the inadequacies of the woman to the wrongdoings of the defendant. However, in the new terminology, submission by force is quite ambiguous. In the end, forcible compulsion is defined, yet again, in terms of a womans resistance.

In the eyes of the court, verbal nonconsent is not adequate. While courts no longer require a female to resist to the utmost or to resist where resistance would be foolhardy, they do requite that her acquiescence in the in the act of intercourse to stem from fear generated by something of substance. She may no simply say, I was really scared, and thereby transform consent or mere unwillingness into submission by force. These words do not transform a seducer into a rapist. She must follow the natural instinct of every proud female to resist, by more than mere words, the violation of her person by a stranger or an unwelcome friend.

She must make it plain that she regards such sexual acts as abhorrent and repugnant to her natural sense of pride. She must resist unless the defendant has objectively manifested his intent to use physical force to accomplish his purpose. (Estrich 64) This dissent implies that if the woman feels threatened, she is exempt from having to use physical force to prove that the advances were unwelcome. In Wyoming, a trial judge found that a victim does not have to subject herself to a beating, knifing, or anything of that nature.

As long as she is convinced something of a more serious nature will happen she is then given by law the right to submit. (Estrich 66) However, on appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court found that, because it would place the determination solely in the judgment of the prosecutrix and omit the necessity element of a reasonable apprehension and reasonable ground for such fear; and the reasonableness must rest with the fact finder. (Estrich 67) Another court, in a case where a woman was alone with the defendant and the woman was much smaller in size than the defendant, decided that saying no was not enough to show resistance.

It is true that she told the appellant that she didnt want to do that [stuff]. But the resistance that must be shown involves no merely verbal but physical resistance to the extent of her ability at the time. (Estrich 68) Another aspect of the law that needs to be changed but remains the same is the stipulation that a man cannot rape his own wife. In 1985, nine states still disallowed the prosecution of a husband, even in the most brutal raping of his wife. The only limit on this rule is that if a married couple is living apart and legally separated, the husband may then be charged with rape.

The supposed rationale behind this legislation is that, marriage or equivalent relationship, while not amounting to a legal waiver of the womans right to say no, does imply a kind of generalized consent the problem with abandoning the immunity in many such situations is that the law of rape, if applied to spouses, would thrust the prospect of criminal sanctions into the ongoing process of adjustment in the marital relationship. (Estrich 74) In current law, many improvements have been made. Cases are no longer decided based on the sexual history of the victim. Many jurisdictions have passed rape law reform statutes.

Provisions in these bills provide for a gender-neutral view of rape. Michigan, hailed as the model feminist reform statute, punishes criminal sexual conduct; it is addressed not to men and women but to actors and victims. (Estrich 81) Over half of the jurisdictions have now adopted this gender-neutral approach to rape. Although this change in wording expands the definition of rape in certain respects, it narrows it in others. The term criminal sexual conduct has created a new set of problems. There is some debate as to whether rape is a sexual crime or a violent crime.

The new terminology suggests that rape is more of a violent crime. The trouble is that a man can force sex upon a woman without resorting to violence. Therefore, the simple rape once again becomes no rape at all. The rape as violence approach may strengthen the case for punishing violent sex, but it may do so at the cost of obscuring the case for punishing forced sex in the absence of conventional violence, the usual pattern in the simple rape. (Estrich 83) The second problem with the new wording pertains to the specifics of what counts as sexual conduct.

To combat this, some states have redefined intercourse to include not only oral and anal penetration but also any other intrusion, however slight, of any part of a persons body or of any object into the genital or anal openings of another persons body. Many reform statutes have also redefined sexual contact as any touching that can be reasonably construed as being for sexual purposes. These redefinitions are important because they break away from the male perspective of what intercourse is and approach exactly what makes a woman feel violated.

Michigan, like other states, have also attempted to define rape in terms of the wrongdoings of the man, as opposed to the older method of focusing on the womans combative measures. The new laws can be somewhat flawed, however. For example, in Michigan, the only situation in which sex (penetration or contact) is penalized in the absence of force or coercion is where the act takes place under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony or where the actor is armed with a weapon.

The flaws in this new wording prohibit such acts as consensual sex between the kidnappers themselves. It also bans consensual intercourse of a married couple if one of the partners happens to be armed but not brandishing the weapon. The force and corroboration requirements have also been unambiguously abolished. The reformed, statute explicitly provides that the testimony of the victim need not be corroborated and that a victim need not resist the actor. (Estrich 86) Michigan outlines what threats are construed as coerced sex.

The definition includes the threat, to use force or violence on the victim, the threat, to retaliate in the future against the victim, or any other person, and when the actor engages in the medical treatment or examination of the victim in a manner or for purposes which are medically recognized as unethical or objectionable. (Estrich 86) A problem with this definition is that the immediate threat must be directly on the victim, and not, for example, on her children or family.

In addition, the proviso that prohibits unethical medical acts can be read to disallow alternative medicine, as well as controversial medical practices such as abortion. Michigan also provides that if the victim is between the ages of thirteen and sixteen, the actor is in a position of authority over the victim and uses this authority to coerce the victim to submit. (Estrich 87) This stipulation does not outlaw the coercion by authority of a supervisor or teacher over an adult woman. It is only age that the law uses as a limiting factor, not powerlessness.

After a study done in Michigan to evaluate the new reform statute, it was found that there was some improvement in conviction rates, but overall that, the law has very little impact on the systems approach to sexual assault cases. (Estrich 88) The reform did not cause more women to report rape. Classic violent rape continued to be treated more seriously than simple rape, and simple rape was not usually prosecuted. The only real improvement was the, decline in the importance attached to the victims prior sexual history.

However, although inadmissible as evidence, defense attorneys continued to investigate a womans past in order to discredit her testimony in court. Washington State also passed innovative legislation similar to that of Michigan. But Washington also, provides a third degree offense where the victim did not consent to sexual intercourse and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the victims words or conduct. (Estrich 89) This law could be read to allow the woman to merely verbalize her nonconsent, but it has not been used in that way.

The provisions in the first two degrees of rape require that physical force or threatened bodily injury be employed. Therefore, the definition of the first two degrees preempt the content of rape 3 and render its prosecution difficult. (Estrich 89) Cases of uncorroborated simple rape are still likely to be dismissed. The only benefit of the third degree was that perpetrators of it were more likely to be convicted of rape than assault. Therefore, those convicted were labeled rapists, which carries a greater stigmatism.

Estrich proposes that, changing the words of statutes is not nearly so important as changing the way we understand them. (Estrich 91) She repeatedly suggests that the mans blameworthiness be investigated, rather than that of the woman. The also indicates that laws that allow men to be victims of rape are important symbolically because they show a change in thinking, but practically, they are of no use. She claims that homosexual rape is almost never reported because of the disgrace attached to it, and that only men rape.

Therefore, there should be no cases with male victims and female defendants, although, she adds, that if a woman were to commit a rape, she should be punished. Estrich also implores that men behave reasonably and to impose criminal penalties for those who do not. It is reasonable that a man in the 1980s should be one who understands that a womans word is deserving of respect, whether she is a perfect stranger or his own wife. (Estrich 97) She feels that the man of today should understand that no means no.

In holding a man to a higher standard of reasonableness, the law would signify that it considers a womans consent to sex significant enough to merit a mans reasoned attention and respect. It would recognize that being sexually penetrated without consent is a grave harm; and that being treated like an object whose words are not even worthy of consideration adds insult to injury. In effect, the law would impose a duty on men to open their eyes and use their heads before engaging in sexnot to read a womans mind, but to give her credit for knowing it herself when she speaks it, regardless of their relationship.

Estrich further claims that in law, consent should be defined to mean no means no. She concludes that whether rape is sex or violence, simple or aggravated, it is a sexual violation, of the most personal, most intimate, and most offensive kind Simple rape is real rape. (Estrich 104) In her essays, MacKinnon provides proposed changes in laws as well. Her changes do not directly modify rape law, but they amend what she sees as a social injustice. She asks that the First Amendment no longer protect, social dominance.

MacKinnon begs that the victims of the protected speech of Nazis, Klansmen, and pornographers be relieved of injury. She hopes for a society in which hate speech rests among dinosaur bones as ancient history. The laws governing what is and what is not rape do need to be changed to suit the needs of true victims of the crime. The proposed changes of Susan Estrich are rational and well thought out. They do not condemn those who are innocent and they empower women to seek retribution for awful heinous acts against them.

The ideas of Catharine MacKinnon, however, are not so well grounded. She recommends changes in our Constitution that retroact the ideas upon which our nation was founded. Free speech has long been a cherished aspect of our society. And although it can be used to hurt, it can also be used to bring aid and information to those in need. Imposing limits on freedom of expression would dampen our nations uniqueness and suppress the voice of the people. Her idea that pornography acts as sex and can therefore be banned because it is no longer speech is ludicrous and rash.

The repercussions of such an amendment would change our society to one of ultimate government control. The examples that she gives to relate pornography to racism are limited in scope. She suggests that because Henri Matisses The Blue Nude(Matisse) portrays an unclothed female that a man may, in her words, get off on,(MacKinnon 58) it should be banned. The line between art and explicit pornography is not one that the government should be able to draw. The government should, however, protect victims from physical acts of rape as Susan Estrich describes.

The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century; slum poverty was blamed, in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millenium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.

There is a study devoted to finding the causes of crime and what makes people criminals. This study is appropriately called criminology. There are two main theories which criminologists categorize causes of crime, and sometimes an individual would be subject to both their influences. Theories in the first group locate the causes of crime inside the individual, which focus on stress and other psychological factors. Conversely, theories categorized in the second group focus the causes of crime on factors that are out of the control of the certain individual. These influences are sociological.

Some psychologists theorize that criminals are born with a predisposition towards mental illness. Even though this is a widely accepted idea, for a mental illness to come out, it has to be catalyzed by the person’s environment. In other words, even if a person were born with the biological makings of a criminal, depending on how he was raised and how he lived life would determine if this inherent attribute would manifest. There needs to be an external cause to trigger the characteristic. Many criminologists are stuck on developing biological explanations to the make-up of criminals. These theories are often called “bad seed” theories.

They hold that criminals are born and not developed. The most recently discovered “bad seed” theory is that some men are born with an extra Y chromesone that makes them more aggressive (Adams 157). The problem with this theory is if one of these men with the extra chromosome was raised in a way that would inhibit the individual’s trait, you would never see the characteristics of this extra chromosome and it would just devalue this theory. Another problem with this theory is that there are criminals who just happen to be women and there is no way that you could tie this theory in with the behavior of women criminals.

Women do not have Y-chromosomes. They simply have a pair of X’s. The second category of explanations for criminal behavior based solely on a human’s environment is the theory that receives the most credit, and obviously is backed by the most truth. Endless examples and mountains of proof back this environment theory. To further bash the first category, all of its components are only brought out by their environment. While the level of stress a person can handle is an inherent part of their make-up, how they react to that stress is a learned attribute.

Not only reactions to the stress are varied on different social structures, but the types and levels of stress vary as well. For example, a violent minded child who is not capable of dealing with stress well could be born into a rich family and experience no frustrations. On the other hand, if a calm child were born into an abusive environment, he would have a better tendency to snap because of the levels of stress he experiences in that environment. A quite popular idea is that a person’s childhood has the greatest influence on their personality and their moral standards.

As stated by Patrick Crispen in Criminal Minds, a child’s morals are learned and set by the age of ten years old (67). Also stated in Criminal Minds, is the assumption that a sixth-grade teacher could look at a class of students and determine who will be successful, who will be a “trouble-maker”, and so forth (70). This is a deeper example of how personality traits are developed at an early age. Parents play the most crucial role in the development of a child’s life. Children learn by example. Through the examples that the parents set, criminal behavior could be either encouraged or prevented.

This “learn by example” way of development by a child could easily be mistaken for the genetic make-up of the child’s mindset. How easy would it be to say that because the child acts in the same manner as the parents do, that this is simply a product of inheritance when, in fact, the manners of a child is learned through parent’s actions rather than being passed on through genetics. This explains why adopted children still have the same moral values and standards as their adoptive parents which could be as well be much different from their biological parents.

But stubborn geneticists would still insist on the inheritance factor by finding small, insignificant personality traits that both the biological parents and the child share. In many cases, a child will have a virtually parentless upbringing. In some of these cases, both of the parents still live with the child . not necessarily abandoning them . but certain responsibilities cause them to not see much of each other. Through the lack of interaction between parent and child, the child would have to base its moral standards on another figure, such as a television show or cartoon or a teacher.

This would decrease the connection between parent and child, and further decrease the parental influence. A child who has raised himself is much less likely to listen to an authority figure. Another main influence in how a child thinks is his peers . the moral structure that they have been raised with. In desperation of fitting in, people can do things that are uncharacteristic of themselves that may land them in “deep sneakers”, but the consequences are not as important as fitting in. Eventually, a habit gets formed of living up to dares and taking more risks.

Over a period of time, this type of behavior becomes the norm and a new way of living is developed. In absence of parental figures, children will find substitute figures to latch onto. These substitute figures will form their code of ethics and moral behavior. Depending on the substitute figure chosen, the code of ethics and moral behavior is reflected. Unfortunately, in the absence of parents, children are attracted to the more exciting and daring personalities such as people who get in trouble in class and seem exciting.

So, in other words, without the parents’ guidance, the child would naturally veer toward the more daring side of life. Even though they may look up to their friends more than their parents, kids still need someone to tell them what is wrong and what is right because no one is born with a sixth sense of this. It has to be learned (Kraeplin 3). What is morally right is usually accepted as what the majority of the population around you accepts. Consequently, what is morally accepted in one environment may not be morally accepted in another environment. City living is a breeding place for criminals.

There are so many people in big cities that no one focuses on grouping individuals. People simply do what they do and everyone leaves everyone alone. The entire city has too many people in it, to worry about everyone’s moral standards. So when you do something immoral, it goes practically unnoticed. Even if someone notices it, it’s very unlikely that they could pick you out of everyone in the city and point you out as the person who did the crime. Criminals are encouraged when they see crimes go unsolved. It gives them the confidence they need to continue their criminal behavior without fear of getting caught.

And there are enough people in a city that no matter how you act; you could find people just like you. If you have a tendency to get in trouble a lot, you could easily find someone to encourage your actions. A social status, whether you like it or not, can drag you into or out of a life of crime. A dead-broke bum with no house is forced to steal food in order to stay alive, and steal clothing in order to stay warm. Of course, you could suffer and not break any laws, but the immediate need would usually outweigh the consequences.

You may not be literally forced into a life of crime, but it just might be the best choice you have. Being in such need makes stealing seem much more attractive than it would if you had no need to steal. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, criminals are influenced and not born. You can easily infer this on your own, but with the help of this report it seems much more obvious. The most obvious and consistent influence in the development of a person seems to be the environment in which they live in and the influence, or lack thereof, of their parents.

One of the frustrations faced by many businesses is that after the perpetrators of crimes have been identified, the District Attorney’s office will not pursue the case. One option is for victims to sue the DA in an attempt to compel him to prosecute, but this would be costly and proving dereliction of duty would be difficult. The DA is effectively immune. Other options are more promising. The law should encourage (and prosecutors’ offices should welcome) private preparation of criminal cases. Prosecutors’ budgets simply do not allow vigorous prosecution of all the available criminal cases.

Logic and evidence show that in private law, plaintiffs win about 50 percent of the cases that are tried. This is because the parties are more likely to settle lopsided cases out of court. Public prosecutors, by contrast, win far more than 50 percent of their trial cases because they have budget constraints and so elect whenever possible to go to court with only the cases they are likely to win. Victims should be allowed to hire private attorneys and other professionals to prepare cases against the accused and thereby extend public prosecutors’ resources.

The attorneys can be retained pro bono (for the good) or for compensation. This is already done in some white collar cases where financial complexities exceed the prosecutors’ expertise, such as complicated embezzlement cases, some oil and gas swindles and cases involving the misapplication of construction trust funds. At present, many cases are never prosecuted for one reason or another. For example, in about 40 percent of federal embezzlement and fraud cases, charges are dropped because of insufficient evidence to convict, given the resources at hand.

In some instances prosecutors “deputize” attorneys to try cases, too. Many private attorneys have criminal experience as former prosecutors or public defenders. A logical extension of private preparation for trial is the complete privatization of the prosecutor’s job by contracting out. Private attorneys, of course, are often appointed on a pro bono basis for criminal defense. Private attorneys could be deputized for a single trial or for ongoing prosecutor’s work, either pro bono or under contract.

The same remedies are available to finance criminal prosecution as civil litigation. Commercial insurance policies could be expanded or created for this market. Associations and community groups could cover these costs for members and subscribers. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that because the assistance of counsel in a criminal case is a fundamental necessity, the Constitution requires appointment of attorneys to represent “any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer. ”

Today, the promise of Gideon is threatened — in virtually every jurisdiction — by severe budget cuts resulting in understaffed defense offices and excessive caseloads. Meanwhile, prosecutors’ budgets keep escalating and law-makers keep inventing more draconian statutes. Adequate funding for indigent defense is a priority concern for NACDL, as reflected in the tireless efforts of our Indigent Defense Committee and our own full-time staff Indigent Defense Coordinator. Indigent defense is also a central concern of our Legislative Committee and our Amicus Committee.

The Association’s most recent addition, a full-time Death Penalty Resource Counsel, commits NACDL to leading a redoubled campaign opposing executions and needless and barbaric taking of human lives. The NACDL Prosecutorial Misconduct Committee is co-chaired by Hugo Rodriguez of Miami, Florida, Marvin Miller of Alexandria, Virginia, and Robert Hooker of Tucson, Arizona. The Committee serves to assist our communities and the legal system by shedding light on misconduct and abuse on the part of authorities.

The American people have an abiding faith in the fairness of our nation’s criminal justice system. Exposure of prosecutorial abuse helps to cleanse the system, impart balance and restore fundamental fairness for citizens accused of crime. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We seek your assistance in helping us ensure justice and due process for those accused of crime by promoting the proper and fair administration of criminal justice.

If you were involved in or have knowledge of a documented case of law enforcement or prosecutorial abuse, share it with us by sending us the court decision, appellate decision, or other documentation. We will share verifiable cases with others so that these are no longer hidden from the public but brought out into the light of day and exposed. The Problem: Personalization of Prosecution Invites Excess: Once the phrase “prosecutorial discretion” conjured up an image of sober, reflective and mature exercise of well-informed judgment, usually characterized by a certain concern for public confidence in the system.

Now the phrase has increasingly become synonymous with the arbitrary targeting of subjects based on criteria ranging from political hardball, to prosecutorial ambition, to the allure of urgent newspaper headlines and television promos (“News at 11”) that, like magic pixie dust, can grace a faceless civil servant with instant celebrity status. To be sure, most prosecutors we encounter work long hours with little glory trying to bring about a just result. The problem is at the margins — but the margins are growing.

Increasingly, the high public profile of a target or the attention-grabbing nature of the alleged wrongdoing may have more to do with a matter’s “prosecutorial merit” than the strength of the evidence or the seriousness of the crime. It is axiomatic by now that whenever prosecutorial effort becomes more focused on “getting” a particular person than pursuing a particular, identifiable allegation, as is increasingly the case, it alters the very architecture and mission of the prosecutor’s office.

The personalization of prosecution — “let’s get this guy” — invites excess. The problem has become endemic, and the solution will need to go beyond ad hoc displays of judicial exasperation and oversight. It requires careful, synoptic analysis of the extent and nature of prosecutorial excess, especially in connection with the prosecution of relatively minor white-collar allegations covered by sweeping and overlapping civil or administrative remedial schemes.

A congressional solution is necessary to truly curb the over-breadth of discretion and power given to individual lawyers who happen to hold the job of counsel for the government. Until then, however, we believe that it is the job of a conscientious judiciary, at the aggressive urging of defense counsel, to restore traditional notions of responsible exercise of power contained in both the case law and the applicable codes of ethics that apply to government lawyers with equal or greater force than they apply to the rest of the bar.

There are many existing tools available to judges who are serious about curbing cumulative prosecutorial excess and exercising the inherent authority given to them to bring about “a just result. ” A popular myth has grown up about the way prosecutors and government civil enforcement lawyers operate when they are “doing it by the book.

The assumption is that there are “orthodox” methods of building a case that savvy prosecutors use, as though one can build a case like selecting recipes from a cookbook: isolate subjects; threaten “small fry” with “jail time” for minor infractions to obtain their “cooperation” in testifying against the “big game;” increase pressure on a defendant by targeting family members if necessary to “turn” them; wire “friends” and colleagues with radio transmitters, recorders, and video cameras; infiltrate the target’s business or organization with informers; nail down evidence of tangentially related but easy to prove “crimes” as a way of reaching elusive targets of prosecution; seek to disqualify or even investigate a defendant’s lawyer to impair or cripple an effective defense. Not to mention more conventional tactics such as wiretaps, surveillance, mail intercepts, pre-trial forfeiture, asset freezes, and broad search warrants.

It is difficult to argue against the aggressive use of these tools and tactics in connection with prosecutions aimed at breaking up terrorist bombing plots, espionage cells, massive fraud by government contractors, corrupt judges, dishonest union chiefs, big time money launderers, international narcotics operations, organized crime families, vicious racial hate crimes, widespread and violent gang activity, or the exploitation and abduction of children. From Eliot Ness to Clint Eastwood, public sympathy has always been on the side of zealous (sometimes even overzealous) law enforcement when the government operates as the citizenry’s bulwark against the sociopathic, the violent, and the rapaciously dishonest.

The past several years, however, have brought about an unmistakable sea change in how things work, both in identifying targets of prosecution and in deploying the full artillery barrage of available “by the book” tools when a 22-calibre pistol will do nicely. The use of large weaponry on small targets cheapens the law and the public’s view of those who enforce it.

What has been lost is a sense of proportionality and identification of priorities. Like most processes calling for the exercise of judgment and discretion, the decision to mobilize the vast array of weapons available to the government requires a thoughtful balancing test. Tactics must be tailored to the goal. When external factors such as publicity, ego, and ambition intrude and impact on the decision-making process, the phrase “doing it by the book” can take on a new and pernicious meaning.

The new-found role of prosecutors and defense lawyers as celebrities has brought about an entirely new level of interest in the role of lawyers in the law enforcement process and a powerful new source of external influence, on prosecutors especially. Once, even in sensational trials such as the Gotti prosecutions and the World Trade Center bombing cases, the defense lawyers and prosecutors were all but unknowns as the cases unfolded. No longer. From the Simpson case, the Kennedy-Smith case, “Baby M,” the Menendez brothers, to the advent of Court TV, with its Cochran, Rivera, and their professional siblings (to say nothing of prime time dramas based on lawyers), the lawyers have become the story.

And not only those lawyers actually involved in a particular high-profile case, but an ever-growing Greek Chorus of lawyer-experts turned talking heads who provide endless commentary ranging from sagacious to silly. Today, even independent counsel retain press agents and spin meisters. Courts should not be oblivious to the phenomenon of such prosecutorial abuse, and should use the traditional ethical and procedural safeguards that bind the conduct of all lawyers in instances when government counsel step over ethical lines. Congress has responded in a variety of ways to public concern about crime, often without a sound appreciation or even a rudimentary understanding of the relationship between the crime, the punishment, and the process.

Congress has defined ever-increasing numbers of business practices as constituting criminal conduct, often in ways that are so inartful that it is difficult to separate that which is lawful from that which is “just business. ” Slapdash revisions of complex regulatory schemes can leave prosecutors and regulatory agencies with the “discretion” to take what are essentially regulatory violations, such as issues of labeling, weights and measures, and billing classifications, and convert them into indictable offenses.

Often, the criteria are so vague that courts, let alone defendants, cannot figure out what is prohibited. Similar broad and overlapping enforcement schemes exist in connection with securities regulation, health care fraud, government contracting, and environmental compliance.

Thus, prosecutors enjoy a combination of the broadest possible set of investigatory tools and a smorgasbord of Title 18 and civil remedial measures with which to threaten targets and those around them. We have, in effect, criminalized the regulatory regimes of government such that: A 70-year-old defendant is criminally prosecuted for environmental reporting errors for alleged discharge of pollutants exceeding permit limits, based largely on the testimony of a co-employee in exchange for a more lenient sentence. A motion for a new trial based on the government witness’ statements that his testimony was false is denied, though a new trial is ultimately granted on the court’s failure to instruct the jury as to the weight it could give evidence of the defendant’s good character.

An investor is indicted for intentionally and knowingly making two false financial statements to banks; one financial statement carried a disclaimer regarding the allegedly misleading information and the other was found to be “improper” because of an accounting method the government disputed.

The defendant was prosecuted for intentional misconduct though all relevant information had been accounted for in defendant’s tax returns and through defendant’s testimony in a bankruptcy proceeding as it had been described in the financial statements. The advent of the federal Sentencing Guidelines has removed judges’ ability to restore balance and proportionality at the punitive phase of prosecutions by exercising educated judgment in fashioning flexible relief based on the qualities of the person convicted and the totality of the circumstances.

The unintended consequence has been the aggregation of enormous power in the hands of the prosecutor who can come to the bargaining table armed with unilateral ability to stack the deck by deciding how to frame and characterize the charges. While this charging power was always present, it is now accompanied by a rigid set of inexorable sentencing consequences that no amount of advocacy or forensic showing can counter. Congress has armed prosecutors and many regulatory agencies with a range of pre-hearing remedies that, as applied, are both cataclysmic –even to the innocent — and difficult to defend against. Whether in the use of forfeitures in actions against property, or pre-judgment asset freeze, the very existence of these devices gives a prosecutor an awesome in terrorem negotiating tool.

Equally troubling are the broad pre-judgment asset freeze and restitution powers given to administrative offices such as the OTS and the SEC. Courts have upheld agency pre-hearing orders that for all practical purposes pauperize a defendant before he or she has had an opportunity to mount a defense. 16

In these circumstances, “justice” depends wholly upon the government lawyers’ exercise of good faith, judicious restraint and fairness — qualities that do not necessarily come with the job. This is a lesson that more than a half dozen Justice Department lawyers learned when the Chief Judge of the Federal Claims Court, citing “old fashioned” ideas about the duty of government lawyers, excoriated them for taking positions that do “no credit to the United States.

Finally, the inherent nature of the grand jury process itself, although far from being “new,” has departed so far from its original purpose as a restraining influence on the British Crown, that it has been taken to new limits as a tool to sculpt indictments, with little critical supervision from any source. Technically, judges supervise grand juries and are available to hear motions challenging a prosecutor’s conduct.

But judges do not oversee day-to-day operation of the grand jury, and abuse is an open secret that defense lawyers are often powerless to combat. Representing witnesses before a grand jury, or the person being investigated, has become a well orchestrated, even cynical, minuet. The first and most important task may be overcoming the cynicism of so many lawyers in and out of government to whom concern for “fairness” somehow signifies weakness. It is a cynicism that government lawyers should not have the luxury of acting upon.

In reality, a commitment to fairness is a highly reliable sign of strength and confidence in the merits of one’s position, and it is usually those who fear the fairness of the forum who most fear outcomes based on merit. Recently, a controversy has erupted over whether Justice Department lawyers are bound by state codes of ethics and analogous local federal court rules of practice. The issue stems from rules that restrict contact by lawyers with parties known to be represented by counsel, including corporate parties. In essence, the government is seeking to exempt its own lawyers from state and federal court ethical restraints in ways that would go far beyond issues of witness contact. Courts, thus far, have been unsympathetic to this government effort at unilateral exemption from the rules of ethics.

Prohibition was a period in which the sale, manufacture, or transport of alcoholic beverages became illegal. It started January 16, 1919 and continued to December 5, 1933. Although it was designed to stop drinking completely, it did not even come close. It simply created a large number of bootleggers who were able to supply the public with illegal alcohol. Many of these bootleggers became very rich and influential through selling alcohol and also through other methods. They pioneered the practices of organized crime that are still used today.

Thus, Prohibition led to the rapid growth of organized crime. The introduction of prohibition in 1919 created numerous opinions and issues in American society. Prohibition had been a long standing issue in America, with temperance organizations promoting it since the late eighteenth century. The movement grew tremendously during the nineteenth century. The Independent Order of Good Templars, one of the major temperance societies, increased it’s membership by 350,000 between 1859 and 1869 (Behr 31).

Other societies followed a similar trend, and millions of Americans belonged to temperance societies by the end of the nineteenth century. When the United States entered World War I in 1914, there was a shortage of grain due to the large demands to feed the soldiers. Since grain is one of the major components in alcohol, the temperance movement now had the war to fuel their fight. “The need to conserve grain, the importance of maintaining some semblance of discipline and devotion …. to demonstrate the nation’s sober determination to protect its interests. (Repeal .. 933)

Thus, the war played a large part in the introduction of Prohibition. During the next five years many states enacted their own prohibition laws, and finally, at midnight on December 16, 1919, Amendment 18 went into effect. It states that, “… the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. ” (Constitution) The public reaction to the introduction of Prohibition was largely mixed. The temperance organizations rejoiced at their victory. Over a century of work had finally paid off for them.

The rest of the country, however, was less than pleased. Many saw it as a violation of their freedom, and others simply wanted to keep drinking. It did not take long for people to begin their protest. Less than one hour after prohibition took effect six gunmen hijacked a train in Chicago and stole over $100,000 worth of whiskey that was marked for medicinal use (Gingold 28). In New York, although there were no violent protests recorded that night, people all over the city mourned the loss of alcohol at their favorite saloon or restaurant, and drank a final toast at midnight (John … Toll of 12).

The huge public demand for alcohol led to a soaring business for bootleggers. When prohibition began, people immediately wanted a way to drink. Hence, the extremely profitable bootlegging business was born. Before Prohibition gangs existed, but had little influence. Now, they had gained tremendous power almost overnight. Bootlegging was easy – New York City gangs paid hundreds of poor immigrants to maintain stills in their apartments. Common citizens, once law abiding, now became criminals by making their own alcohol. However, this posed risks for those who made their own.

The rich managed to continue drinking good liquor while less-affluent Americans often consumed homemade alcoholic beverages, which were sometimes made with poisonous wood alcohol. ” (Eighteenth … Prohibition) Thus, many died due to alcohol poisoning. There was very little enforcement to the law, since the government employed few prohibition agents, most of whom could be bribed by the bootleggers. Those in favor of prohibition “became increasingly dismayed with the efforts of the government to enforce the law. ” (Repeal … 1933) “In 1920, the government had fewer than 1,600 low-paid, ill-trained Prohibition agents for the entire country. Gingold 37)

Speakeasies, which got their name because a password had to be spoken through the door to get in, popped up all over the country. “The number of speakeasies in New York was somewhere in the hundreds or even thousands. It was easy enough for police to close and padlock individual speakeasies, but there were so many it was impossible to keep them shut down. ” (Gingold 36) Even with prohibition in effect, the demand for alcohol never gave it a chance to work. Al Capone used prohibition to build a crime empire unparalleled in United States history.

He started as a member of John Torrio’s gang in Chicago. Torrio was a notorious gangster and bootlegger, and after he was shot in 1922 Capone became the leader of his gang. He quickly expanded the business, and by 1930 “controlled speakeasies, bookie joints, gambling houses, brothels, horse and race tracks, nightclubs, distilleries and breweries at a reported income of $100,000,000 a year. ” (History Files 1) By bribing police and prohibition agents, he was able to get away with almost anything he did. Capone was the first and last gangster to openly flaunt his crimes.

He was somewhat of a celebrity in Chicago and admitted what he did with quotes suck as: “All I’ve ever done is to supply a public demand – you can’t cure a thirst by a law … It’s bootleg when it’s on the trucks, but when your host hands it to you on a silver tray, it’s hospitality … They say I violate Prohibition. Who doesn’t? “(Michell 39) Capone also believed in killing anyone who got in his way. Throughout his career, Capone was said to have killed over 200 people, but he was never convicted of any related charge. In addition to bootlegging and his other establishments, Capone began the widespread use of racketeering.

Racketeering is when Capone would force businesses to pay him money in exchange for protection by his gang. Really, though, they were paying for protection from Capone’s gang (Letts 88). However, what goes up must come down. Capone became too famous for his own good. The American public began to hate him for being able to defy the law, and the government hated him for continuously breaking their laws and embarrassing them. After the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929, in which seven rival gang members were executed by gunmen dressed as police, Capone was seen as a truly evil and bad man by the public.

In 1931, Capone was indicted for tax evasion and sentenced to ten years in prison along with substantial fines. At first he went to Atlanta prison, but after being able to buy better treatment there he was transferred to Alcatraz, where his money meant nothing. He was soon diagnosed with syphilis and spent the rest of his term in a hospital. After he was released Capone returned to his Florida estate and slowly succumbed to his disease until his death on January 25, 1947 (History Files 6).

After the downfall of Al Capone and the repeal of prohibition, organized crime remained largely based on the methods of Capone and the gangsters like him. Prohibition was repealed with the 21st Amendment in 1933, much to the joy of many Americans. It was repealed for two reasons – one, people had decided that the negative aspects out weighed the positive, and two, the country was entering the Great Depression, so it was thought that producing and selling alcohol would create more jobs and help boost the economy (Asbury 227).

Even some proponents admitted that the Eighteenth Amendment resulted in ‘evil consequences’. ” (McGuire 1) One of the major negative aspects of Prohibition, organized crime, failed to be eliminated by the repeal. Although bootlegging became a thing of the past, other methods such as extortion, money laundering, and racketeering continued and became more prominent. “The bootleg wars ended with the relegalization of liquor, but the mobs did not fade away … In one form or another, these mobs are still with us today.

Prohibition led to organized crime as we know it today. Men like Al Capone got their start during Prohibition and were able to develop a system whose methods led into the Mafia and other forms of modern day crime. “Prohibition produced the like of Al Capone and organized crime, speak-easies, bootleggers, bathtub gin, and a national wildness called the “roaring twenties. ” (McGuire 1) Prohibition turned the small gangs that existed in the early twentieth century into the powerful Mafia that exists today.

Forensic Science, also known as Forensics, is the application of science to law. It uses highly developed technology to uncover scientific evidence in a variety of fields. Modern forensic science has a broad range of applications. It is used in civil cases such as forgeries, fraud or negligence. The most common use of forensic science is to investigate criminal cases involving a victim, such as assault, robbery, kidnapping , rape, or murder.

Forensic science is also used in monitoring the compliance of various countries with such international agreements as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention and to learn whether a country is developing a secret nuclear weapons program. It can help law enforcement officials determine whether any laws or regulations have been violated in the marketing of foods and drinks, the manufacture of medicines, or the use of pesticides on crops. It can also determine whether drinking water meets legal The medical examiner is the most important individual in an investigation of a crime involving a victim.

It is the responsibility of the medical examiner to visit the crime scene, conduct an autopsy (examination f the body) in cases of death, examine the medical evidence and lab reports, study the victims history, and put all the information together in a report to be Medical examiners are usually physicians specializing in forensic pathology, the study of structural and functional changes in the body as a result of injury. Their training and qualifications most often include a medical degree and an apprenticeship in a medical examiners office. In the field of forensic science, there are many subspecialties.

They include odontology (the study of teeth), anthropology(the study of human eings), psychiatry, biology, chemistry, physics, toxicology (the study of poisons), and pathology (the examination of body tissues and fluids). The medical examiner may call upon forensic scientists who are specialized in these fields for help in a crime investigation. Toxicology is a branch of forensic science that deals with the adverse effects of drugs and poisonous chemicals found in the home, at work or in the environment. All drugs have toxic effect but the effect is most often minor.

The toxic effect of drugs may produce only a little discomfort or they may be serious enough to cause death. One of the most common cases of death by Pathology is the branch of forensic science that determines the nature and course of diseases by analyzing body fluids and tissues. Pathology is divided into clinical and anatomic pathology. Clinical pathologists contribute to the diagnosis of diseases by measuring chemicals and cells in blood, sputum, bone marrow and urine. Anatomic pathologists perform autopsies and analyze tissues taken from patients during surgery or by biopsy.

The medical examiner investigates many different types of violent crime to determine whether a violent death was an accident, a suicide, or a omicide. In cases involving gunshot wounds, the medical examiner looks for gunpowder residues on the clothing of the victim and around wounds. The information is used to determine whether the gun was fired by the victim of In the case of knife wounds, the medical examiner must distinguish between a cut (an injury that is longer than deep) and a stab wound (an injury that is deeper than long).

He must also be able to identify a defense wound which is a cut caused when a victim grabs the knife in self-defense. Cuts are associated with suicide. The body of the victim usually has numerous parallel uts which indicate hesitant wounds or repeated hesitant trials before the final cut is made. Homicides typically consist of one deep gash. Medical examiners are also called upon to investigate cases of asphyxiation or death form lack of oxygen in the blood. Asphyxiation may be caused in a number of different ways, such as hanging , which can be an accident, homicide or suicide, or strangling which is homicide.

Damage to the victims air passage by an object in the throat or compression of a victims chest by a person or an objector the replacement of oxygen in the red blood ells by another gas such as carbon monoxide poisoning. That too can be a result of an accident, homicide or suicide. In a death involving carbon monoxide poisoning a closed garage door and no marks on the body are usually taken as an indication of suicide. The presence of tools around the car and grease on the victims hands is an indication of an accidental death.

The presence of a wound caused by a blow to the head or if there is no carbon monoxide in the blood of he victim indicates a homicide that was made to look like a suicide. Forensic science uses sophisticated lab techniques to detect the resence of substances in the victim, the suspected criminal, or at the crime scene. In determining whether alcohol was involved in a crime, the amount of alcohol in the blood can be measured in two ways. The first is to measure the amount of alcohol exhaled in the breath of the person. This reveals the concentration of alcohol in the person’s blood.

Blood alcohol level can also be determined by blood tests, usually through chromatography. In this method, the blood sample is vaporized by high temperature, and the gas is sent through a column that separates the different chemical compounds present in the blood. Gas chromatology also detects the presence of barbiturates, cocaine, amphetamines, and heroin. When a body is discovered in a lake, stream, river or ocean, and the lungs are filled with water, the medical examiner must determine if the drowning occurred where the body was found or somewhere else.

A standard microscope that can magnify objects to 1500 times their size is used to look for diatoms. Diatoms are single cell algae that are found in all natural bodies of water. If there are no diatoms, it can be concluded that the drowning took place in a bathtub or sink since diatoms are filtered from tap A scanning electron microscope that can magnify objects 100,000 times is used to detect tiny gunpowder particles present on he hand of a One of the oldest techniques of forensic science is dusting the scene of a crime for fingerprints.

In one method of obtaining a fingerprint, a technician spreads fine powder over a surface with a brush or magnetic wand. The powder sticks o proteins secreted by the sweat glands on the skin ridges of the fingertip When the excess powder is removed, an outline of the contours of the ridges remains. The print may also be chemically treated to reveal the ontours. Since no two fingerprints are the same, fingerprinting is a positive Other evidence that may be found at a crime scene is blood, hair, skin, or semen. Human bite marks can also serve as evidence.

Bites can be found on the victims body or in pieces of food or gum found at the crime scene. A forensic scientist can fill the impression caused by the bite marks with a liquid plastic. The cast will form an accurate replica of the assailants teeth which is then compared with a cast of the suspects teeth. District attorneys call forensic scientists to give their expert testimony n a trial concerning what they find from an autopsy and what they write in the lab reports. Expert testimony is the statement given by a specialist who has been recognized as having expert knowledge about evidence in the case.

An expert witness is allowed to give an opinion about whether or not the evidence is valid. An expert witness may also quote the statements of other experts to support an opinion. Ordinary witnesses are restricted to giving statements about what they actually saw or heard. The medical and legal approach to dealing with crimes began in England during the 12th century. King Richard I established the Office of the Coroner. The coroners main job was to keep a record of all criminal affairs in the county and investigate all deaths that were believed to be a homicide or suicide.

The need for more scientific investigation of unnatural deaths became evident and the coroners began asking doctors for help. Over time medical schools started to prepare doctors in that specific field. In 1807, the University of Edinburgh in Scotland instituted a Department of Legal Early American colonists Bought the coroner system with them. As medical involvement in investigating violent and unexplained deaths increased, communities began requiring that coroners have specific academic training.

In 1877, Massachusetts replaced the coroners office with the Office of the Medical Examiner, which was to be headed by a physician. Soon many other states followed. In 1915 New York City established a program where the medical examiner was authorized to investigate all deaths that occurred to people who appeared to be in good health, that resulted from criminal Computer technology now allows law enforcement officers o record ingerprints digitally and to transmit and receive information for quick identification.

Recent developments in technology allows scientists o examine the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or genetic material of blood, hair, skin, or semen to see if they belong to the victim or the suspected criminal. Using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a lab can clone the DNA from a very small Forensic science as practiced today is a field of science medicine that uses electron microscopes, lasers, ultraviolet and infrared light, advanced chemical techniques and computerized databanks to analyze and research evidence.

Organized crime has always been occupied with a negative label. Perhaps this is due to the constantly changing environment in America as well as the social state of its homeland, Europe. Our society is convinced that the so-called Mafia is a family of pure criminals, pimps, and murderers. Whatever the opinion, there is no doubt that the Mafia played a big part in the history of America and the way Americans view crime today. “The origins of the secret society known as the Mafia are believed to be as old as the 9th century” (Mafia History).

During the 9th century, the Mafias main purpose was to strengthen themselves against enemies, which invaded their homeland in Sicily. It was supposed to create a strong feeling of togetherness between all Sicilians. “This idea of family was carried through in the structure of the organization, which had a strong hierarchical layout” (Mafia History). The Mafia is said by many to have perhaps the best system of power, than any other group or government known today. One can compare a physical representation of the family almost to a family tree dated all the way back through many generations.

Certain people operated the system, but without the help of the people with the less power, the Mafia would be very weak. To put it another way, a leader cannot lead without followers, and the followers cannot follow without leaders. This is why the Mafia was hard to overcome. Although when many think of the location of the Mafia, Chicago and New York often come to mind, but actually the Mafia has been traced back through 26 major cites in America. Within every city were many Mafia families each with its own government.

At the head of each family stood the Dons or Bosses. Next in line to the Dons was the Underbosses, who were second in command. Followed by the Consigliere or counselors. And last were the men who did the dirty work for the Mob, the Soldiers. The Soldiers were the ones who would enforce discipline over both members and non-members through the use of intimidation, assaults, and murder” (Living Large 3). All the members of the society were expected to go through a ceremony that often was compared to the baptism ceremony.

The induction ceremony is the most important day of a mobsters life, the day that they become full members of La Cosa Nostra” (Mafia Life). “The ceremony for the newcomers was something that was looked forward to by all. “The newcomer is told that the Mafia is a secret society and there is one way in and only one way out of it. You come in on your feet and you go in a coffin. Then the new members were asked if they were capable of even killing their own blood family on command” (Mafia Life).

Along with the ceremony, the mobster was told of the rules he must abide by. The most important rule in organized crime was the rule called the Omerta. ” The Omerta is a code of silence. A vow never to reveal any Mafia secrets or member under threat of torture or death” (Mafia History). Another rule was the obedience rule. “The obedience rule stated that the member must at all times be loyal to the boss or Don. A third law of the Mafia was the assistance to any befriended Mafia faction, no questions asked.

A few others included, Avenge any attack on members of the family, because an attack on one was an attack on all, and the last rule was to avoid any and all contact with the authorities” (Mafia History). There is still much we dont know about the Mafia due to the fact that the very first rule when inducted is the Omerta. Along with the many members involved with the Mafia, there were just as many ethnic families that existed if not more. “Mafia families were growing very large in 1800s” (Mafia History).

The reason for the large swelling of crime in America was because of the vicious increase in foreign immigrants during that time in America. “Three million Irish, four million Italians, and four million Jews immigrated to America. They immigrated for a number of reasons. Many of them dreamed of leaving behind their old worlds. Worlds of fear, depression and crime” (Mafia Secrets). So along with these new immigrants came much crime as well which connected brought upon many ethnic gangs. “Each gang had their own gang, there were several of them.

Chinese, Irish, Jewish, and Italian gangs were all recognized at this time”(Mafia Secrets). Every community gang was different in some way. Although Italians are considered the Mafia, the other ethnic groups have their own involvement in some way or another. The Italians were by far the biggest ethnic group, but they were not the only ones. “The Irish were instrumental in putting together the system of organized crime”(American History 260). The Irish were known as very obsessive gamblers who had control of nearly all racetracks and casinos in the early 1900s.

As sportsmen, they invested money in racehorses and promoted racetracks. Throughout this time, organized crime….. may have reached its high point in the United States in terms of the proportion of the population that constituted customers and in terms of the impact upon local police and politicians” (American History 260). The Italians, of course, already had their feet wet in America by their knowledge of the systematic ways of government for nearly 30 years in America and had control of almost every aspect of organized crime.

The Italians remained with, socialized with, and committed crimes on other Italians within the Italian Community. The Italians were involved so deep in Crime that the Sicilian Mafia had so much power that the Sicilian Mafia has been linked to the highest levels of the Italian Government. Many other groups such as the Jews had much influence in the way we look at organized crime as well. The Jewish had been highly connected with America with an elaborate sense of knowledge gained in a short time.

Each ethnic gang made up a small branch of its district which each city had many. Each district was a part of its ethnic group. Very powerful men who were respected by all of the districts soldiers, counselors, and captains led these groups. Each ethnic gang had its most high in command. In fact the Dons throughout history are single handedly responsible for all changes in the way business worked. “Vito Cascio Ferro, (1862-1945), is believed to be the one man primarily responsible for establishing the communication between the Sicilian and U. S. Mafia” (Family Tree).

Ferro is considered the father of what we know as todays Mafia. “His activities are not clear, but it was recorded that Don Vito was suspected in a brutal killing of at least one man. It was told that the man was trying to do business on his turf, which led to a very vicious death where the man was cut into tiny pieces and shoved into a box” (Family Tree). Lucky Luciano was also very influential during his control of the Irish Mafia around the 1920s in America. “After his hostile takeover, Luciano organized organized crime.

He modernized the Mafia, shaping it into a smoothly run national crime syndicate focused on the bottom line” (Time 100) Luciano was a millionaire because of his illegal distribution of alcohol and narcotics. He was later convicted and sentenced to 30 to 50 years in prison, where he soon died. Another famous mob boss who made a dramatic change in organized crime was Al (Scarface) Capone. Capone is perhaps the most famous and for a good reason. “Scarface became the leader of one of the worlds largest crime families. The family numbered over 1000 members, and the majority of the 1000 were stone cold killers as well” (Scaface).

Capone was involved in perhaps the most famous of all the Mob hits of all time, the St. Valentines Day Massacre, which changed the attitude of the public. Capone later, for a different crime, was arrested and sent to Alcatraz where he spent the rest of his life. How we know organized crime today has much to do with the way Hollywood has represented the Mafia. “The worldwide image of organized crime has had a “Made in America” label since the 1930s” (Mafia Image 1) Movies such as “The Last Don”, “Little Caesar”, and “The God Father” series are for how most of us know the way the Mafia works.

Many people are convinced that the Mafia has been wiped out for the last twenty or so years. Much of the crime activity has decreased, however not all traces of the Mafia have disappeared, as we believe. “There is still currently a mob family from Greek decent even in America today. And in the late 70s and early 80s, the Sicilian Mafia was found to be the culprit in one of the largest heroin smuggling rings in history” (Crime Groups). Because of the Omerta, people have a hard time learning the current position of the Mob, and the Mafia is known for making comebacks in a hurry.

For example, the highpoint of the Mafia was said to be in the 1920s, and slowly it decreased until the end of World War II when organized crime came back with much stronger than when the war started. This shows a good understanding of what the Mafia is capable of doing in short periods of time. The men who have tried to get rid of the Mafia time in and time out have made some progress. “Responsible groups of Americans have, at times, waged campaigns in the media to obliterate any assumption that crime is dominated by people of Italian descent, claiming that existence of an American Mafia had not been fully established” (Mafia Image).

The opinions will differ in that sense. Some say that the Mafia is a vast organization that continues to grow in power, while others say that if the mafia still exists to this day, the old ways of organized crime will never be the same as it has been in this century. The desire, need, brutality, wisdom, and style of what we know as the Mafia only exists in books and movies. No matter the opinion, the Mafia still claims the place in American History if it still exists or not.

Juvenile delinquency is a social problem that significantly impacts all members and processes of a social culture. Delinquency refers to behaviors that are not in line with the collective practices of the dominant social group. Essentially, these behaviors stray from societal norms and more specifically they violate established criminal codes and laws. Juvenile delinquency incorporates not only general criminal activity but conduct that is only unlawful for youths such as running away from home and skipping school.

Current research into this difficult and pressing issue reflects a vast range of theories about, and predictors of delinquency as well as a multitude of strategies to control and reduce overall delinquency. The consensus among practitioners and researchers however maintains that juvenile delinquency is a dynamic, multifaceted problem with numerous potentially causal factors.

Subsequently, investigators and professionals suggest that treatment procedures must focus on not only the immediate issue of the offender’s deviant behavior but on every element within the context of that behavior as well, including for example, family relations and social support services/networks. Conventional practice has long associated early preventive measures with positive delinquency reduction results. In particular, timely recognition of at-risk youth and correction of ineffective or minimally effective parenting techniques are critical to the prevention of future delinquency.

Numerous risk factors have been identified as indicators or predictors of juvenile delinquency and those factors represent dysfunction at several levels, specifically within the structure of the offender’s family. Some of these factors include conflict within the family, a lack of adequate supervision and/or rules, a distinct lack of parent-child attachment, instability, poor home life quality, parental expectations, out-of-home placements and inconsistent discipline.

Social service professionals who frequently come into contact with children must be especially vigilant in order to detect the presence of any of the possibly contributory conditions mentioned above and to refer families to appropriate sources of assistance as early as possible. Generally speaking, the relationship between family conflict and delinquency is significant. There are many types of family conflict but the absence of communication and the inability to solve problems are two of the most fundamental forms relative to future delinquency.

The nature of these conflicts is cyclical in that communication and problem-solving breakdowns increase the incidences of delinquency which in turn increase the stress and conflict levels within the family leading to more instances of deviant behavior (Smith & Stern, 1997). Educators, clinicians and other professionals who provide services for children should carefully evaluate reports from children regarding such things as parental fighting, abuse and/or neglect so that they may obviously address those immediate concerns but also assess the possible need for preventive intervention.

Structure is very important in the life of a developing child. Most of that necessary structure is provided by the parents/family. Rules or guidelines are inherently part of that structure and careful parental supervision is essential to the derivation and implementation of those rules. For example, children should always have to tell their parents where they are and whom they’re with. A parent should be diligent in his/her supervision to the extent that (s)he actually knows the whereabouts of his /her children at all times.

Service professionals should understand the relationship between lack of supervision/rules in the home and possible future criminal behavior among youths and should be solicitous in their observations. Parent-child attachment is also a key factor in the delinquency of a minor. Attachment refers to the process that bonds a child to a parent and is usually completed in infancy. It is generally held that children who are insecurely attached to their parents are more likely to commit crimes. However, there are some therapeutic techniques which can be employed to increase the strength of a relationship throughout childhood.

Researchers suggest that social service workers should pay close attention to a child feeling “unloved” or unimportant as these feelings can be indicative of poor attachments and may lead to juvenile criminality. Delinquency can further be related to degrees of instability in an offender’s life. Instability is generally characterized by stress, carrying out threats or promises, frequent changes of friends, dramatic changes in the family, sickness, alcoholism, absence of household routine, precarious financial situations, eviction, death, desertion, separation or divorce.

Attempts should be made by service providers to assess the extent to which a child experiences instability in the home as unchecked instability can contribute to delinquency. The quality of a child’s home life can also positively or negatively affect behavioral outcomes. A home life of poor quality can involve low levels of affection, comfort, supervision and home security. If a child’s home life is inadequate or unsatisfactory then professional intervention will almost assuredly be necessary to address all of the problem components of the home life.

Multiple strategies will have to be employed concurrently and optimally all members of the family will have to be involved in improving the overall quality of the home environment. Studies have shown that what parents expect from their children also affects the likelihood of future delinquency. Typically parents who set high but reasonable standards of conduct have children who are less likely to commit crimes. Parents must teach and encourage their children to behave within a certain set of clear and realistic expectations.

Children who underachieve in school for example may have parents whose expectations of them are comparatively lower. Child service workers may have to intervene to help parents set limits and positively reinforce appropriate behavior. The removal from the home and placement of children outside the home has been linked to delinquency among juveniles. Research has suggested that children who are removed from their homes or frequently transferred between foster homes will exhibit higher rates of delinquency.

The out-of-home placement factor has the potential to create serious problems for the child as it may exacerbate many of the other previously mentioned factors such as instability, quality of home life and attachment formation. Researchers suggest that service providers avoid removal from the home whenever possible and to minimize the frequency with which a child moves between foster homes. Inconsistent discipline has been found as a significant, contributing factor to juvenile delinquency.

Parent’s who ignore inappropriate behavior, are negligent about consistently punishing all misbehaviors with pre-established punishments or who threaten punishment but don’t follow through with it will raise children who are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior. Social workers and other professionals might need to help families establish guidelines for appropriate conduct and consequences for misbehavior. In addition to the previously discussed contributing factors, there are several theories that attempt to explain why juveniles engage in criminal behavior.

Current research suggests that delinquent behavior is learned behavior and not genetically encoded. Two of the most prominent theories are Differential Association theory and Social Control theory. The Differential Association theory relies on three fundamental assumptions. First, this theory assumes that all behavior that is not genetically derived is learned behavior. The second assumption states that the acquisition of behavior occurs in relatively small and informal groups.

The final assumption maintains that behavior develops from a person’s entire life experience as a whole as well as from particular instances and recent events. Differential Association theory posits that if a child displays deviant/delinquent behavior then (s)he ultimately learned that behavior from the people closest to him/her. Clearly this theory supports investigation of delinquency within and through the context of the family, close peer groups and close social groups. The second notable theory, Social Control theory, was proposed by Curran and Renzetti.

Social Control theory suggests that a person’s ties or bonds to social institutions such as family, church, school, etc. prevent him or her from pursuing criminal activity. This theory is based on the concept that people commit crime because it is the easiest, most efficient, most gratifying way to satisfy one’s needs and/or wants. Therefore, if children are relatively unattached to elements of their surrounding social institutions, they are more likely to become juvenile offenders.

Despite the prominence of these theories, recent studies have shown that regardless of the theory utilized, there has been little impact on the reduction of juvenile arrest and crime. Generally speaking, intervention in an attempt to understand and reduce juvenile criminality has been family centered. Several current studies employing a variety of methods have shown some promising effects. Although there has been considerable investigation into juvenile delinquency, there are no definitive answers to the questions of causation or treatment.

Literature reviews suggest that there are a multitude of causal variables and a multitude of potentially effective treatment modalities. It is clear that delinquency among minors does not exist in a vacuum and therefore solutions to this problem must take into account all of the contextual and situational elements surrounding the youth at risk. Further research is necessary in order to attain a more complete understanding of the complex nature of juvenile crime and how society can combat its detrimental effects.