 |
 |
|||
 |
||||
 |
||||
|
Crime and Punishment Page |
||||
|
Posted 6/6/10 Mortgage fraud, ordinary people and the Great Recession
A “flipped” home. All the lender saw is the front view. (FBI photo) By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Four to six billion dollars. That’s what mortgage fraud costs the U.S. each year. And it’s not just our pockets that are getting picked. Effects from America’s financial meltdown have rippled around the world, spreading pain at the speed of the Internet and turning the Great Recession into a global event. An analysis of suspicious mortgage-related activities during 2008 revealed that 65 percent of suspected home purchase fraud and 54 percent of suspected refinance fraud was “for housing,” meaning that borrowers intended to live in the home and keep payments current. Purchasers actively furthered the fraud in 87 percent of these cases, usually by misrepresenting their income and liabilities and offering false documentation. Stated income loans made fudging easy. More popularly called liar’s loans, they carried high (subprime) rates but didn’t require proof of income. Mortgage industry workers can increase their sales volume, thus their income by inflating the creditworthiness of marginal borrowers. It’s estimated that 63 percent of suspected “for housing” schemes involved brokers, and 23 percent appraisers. Indeed, when the market was hot financial firms pressed employees to make as many loans as possible. A State’s attorney who investigated the Ameriquest scandal put it succinctly: “The culture was to sell, sell, sell and do whatever it takes to sell, sell, sell.” A person who identified himself as a loan underwriter (verifies that loans conform to policy) posted this revealing comment on an Internet bulletin board: Now...the initial [loan] application...was submitted [by the loan officer] as [an] unsigned telephone interview so that the gory REAL details of the borrower's data could be swept under the rug and compel the underwriter to approve the loan....I am an underwriter and caught this numerous times to the dismay of my employers who wanted every loan approved. I was not their favorite underwriter...I caught on to the malfeasance...not appreciated. Did this happen on a regular basis, you betcha...every day. We’ll get to why lenders would carelessly dole out cash in a moment. For now let’s turn to the other kind of mortgage fraud, “for profit.” There are many varieties (for an overview click here and go to page 13.) “Flipping,” the repetitive purchase and resale of a home by corrupt investors, is very popular. It often begins with a homeowner desperate to sell. Fraudsters inflate the home’s value with an exaggerated appraisal (see photo above), then get the seller to kick back the difference between the loan and the secretly agreed-to purchase price. They then put the property through a series of sham resales to straw buyers, at each step profiting from the income generated by ever-larger appraisals. Eventually the property is abandoned to foreclosure or sold to an unsuspecting mark. (Click here for a recent example.) Builders are often involved in scams. With a purchaser’s assent they may inflate the selling price and apply the excess loan amount as a pretend down payment, thus creating the illusion that the borrower has equity. Many buyers consider this a quasi-legitimate way to acquire a home with no money down. Of course, if they default the lender quickly discovers that a good chunk of the home’s “value” has vaporized. Reports filed with the Treasury Department suggest that in 2008 sixty-one percent of “for profit” schemes involved buyer cooperation. Their participation was second only to brokers (62 percent) and far more frequent than appraisers (23 percent). When real estate was hot the mortgage industry was more than happy to qualify the unqualified and look the other way as shady brokers and appraisers helped boost the paper value of already overpriced property. In an overheated, go-go atmosphere where home prices rose before lunch, few objected. It’s not that the Feds didn’t know what was going on. As early as 2004 the FBI’s top criminal investigator warned that mortgage fraud “has the potential to be an epidemic.” One year later FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Report pointed out that “combating significant fraud in this area is a priority, because mortgage lending and the housing market have a significant overall effect on the nation's economy.” And it’s not that they lacked legal tools. Mortgage applicants complete a standard form that warns false statements are crimes. Thanks to the interstate commerce clause and the government’s insuring of financial institutions and backing of loans, virtually every shady move is a violation of Federal law. Among the applicable statutes are 18 USC 1341, mail fraud; 18 USC 1343, wire fraud; and 18 USC 1014, false statements in loans and credit applications (click here for an example of a charging document in a Federal prosecution.) Yet as the real-estate bubble grew the number of investigators overseeing the loan industry fell sharply. In the wake of 9/11 the FBI reassigned 2,400 agents from criminal duties to chasing Al Qaeda; by 2007, as the bubble was set to pop, a mere 100 agents were working mortgage fraud. As a retired supervisor said, “we knew that the mortgage-brokerage industry was corrupt....But the agents with the expertise had been diverted to counterterrorism.” Once the nation started slipping into recession the FBI had second thoughts. Many agents were brought back to fight white-collar crime. Their return was welcome. Naturally, much of the damage was already done. Really, mortgage shenanigans were the worst-kept secret in the financial industry. Why did lenders encourage unqualified borrowers to sign on the dotted line? Why didn’t they challenge exaggerated appraisals? Because when times were good churning out loans regardless of quality paid rich dividends. Risk was passed along. Mortgages – including the many stinkers – were sold by smaller lenders to the larger, then bundled by the latter into securities that were peddled throughout the world. As long as homeowners paid their debts, investors got their dividends. If a few borrowers defaulted it hardly mattered. Except that when the bubble burst the cash stopped flowing, fast. Firms that had purchased highly-rated mortgage-backed securities (yes, the ratings agencies were in on it too) turned on the Wall Street firms that got them into the fix. In the end Uncle Sam decided that some financial houses were “too big to fail” and propped them up with taxpayer cash. Soon the big fish were again making money hand over fist and vacationing in the Hamptons. (Click here for an entertaining slide show that tracks the mortgage debacle.) Dreams of home ownership and, yes, profit led many upwardly mobile members of the middle class to take out subprime loans and buy homes that were well beyond their means. Encouraged by brokers and loan officers, ordinary individuals gambled that rising prices would give them enough equity to refinance before teaser rates expired. Holding their noses, they exaggerated their income, minimized their liabilities and dove in. Then the economy collapsed, taking home values with it. Unemployment soared. But like ticking time-bombs the mortgages were still there, their interest rates resetting to stratospheric highs. Without equity getting a new loan was impossible. Jobless or underemployed, owing far more than their properties were worth, millions walked away or were driven from their homes. Once-manicured neighborhoods fell to blight, becoming breeding grounds for crime and disorder. There’s plenty of blame to go around. By all means, point the finger at greedy lenders who peddled loans for which a schnauzer could have qualified. Lock up the crooks who took advantage of the wild-west atmosphere to line their pockets. Go after the financial giants who ignored warning signs and recklessly marketed mortgage-based securities for the sake of a buck. But don’t forget that it couldn’t have happened without help from the many borrowers who decided that the time was ripe to get theirs, and that if all it took was a few white lies and a little bit of imagination, why that was perfectly acceptable. After all, things could only go up! Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED WEBSITES FBI Mortgage Fraud homepage US Treasury Mortgage Fraud Reports Mortgage Fraud Blog RELATED POSTS Who’s Guarding the Henhouse (Part II)? UPDATES 6/17/10 A new Federal campaign against mortgage fraud has led to the arrest of 1,200 individuals allegedly responsible for $2.3 billion in losses. Much of the effort has been directed against brokers who obtained mortgages for unqualified persons. Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 4/26/10 Angry over Federal dithering, Arizona enacts its own immigration laws
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Sooner or later it was bound to happen. Frustrated by the Fed’s laissez-faire attitude about the effects of illegal immigration, the Grand Canyon State struck out on its own. Less than a month after the murder of a goodhearted Arizona rancher (police followed the suspect’s tracks to the border) Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a comprehensive measure that turns illegal aliens into state outlaws and encourages local police to seek them out and hand them over to the Feds. Key provisions include the following:
According to the Department of Homeland Security Arizona has 460,000 illegal immigrants, the seventh most in the nation. As a proportion of the population their number lags only behind California, and then by a whisker (6.9 percent versus 7.0 percent.) SCAAP, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, reimburses States and localities for part of the cost of confining illegal immigrants who are convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors and held for at least four days. (Illegal immigrants convicted of ordinary crimes are commonly called “criminal aliens.”) The GAO reported that in 2003 Arizona prisons housed 4,200 criminal aliens, costing state taxpayers $50 million. SCAAP reimbursed $7 million. Arizona placed fifth in numbers of incarcerated criminal aliens, behind California (30,200), Texas (11,200), New York (5,700) and Florida (5,200). But when adjusted for state population, Arizona’s share was second to California’s. In 2003 the Maricopa County (Phoenix) jail system housed 4,300 criminal aliens, costing state taxpayers $15 million. Its reimbursement? $1 million. Only four jails, two in California, one in Texas and one in New York City held more. Adjusting for county and city size, Maricopa was in third place, just behind the California counties. Another GAO report examined the backgrounds of 55,322 criminal aliens who were incarcerated for any offense in Federal and State prisons and county jails in December 2003. Eighty percent came from three states: California (58 percent), Texas (14 percent) and Arizona (eight percent.) Arizona is one of the nation’s principal gateways for illegal entry, regularly placing first in border arrests and second only to Texas, a state with a population four times its size, in immigration prosecutions. It’s also a primary entry point for illegal drugs, with Federal drug prosecutions in Arizona increasing more than twofold during 2008-2010. And as we pointed out in a prior post, the state’s gun dealers are a major source of firearms for the Mexican cartels. The consequences are obvious. Human, drug and gun trafficking tear at the social fabric, attracting unscrupulous characters, consuming prodigious criminal justice resources and setting the stage for other crimes. According to the Arizona Republic, Phoenix experienced an astounding 368 kidnappings for ransom in 2008, much of it ostensibly related to drug and cartel activity. What’s more, although its police chief touts the city as “one of America’s safest large cities,” a 2008 survey of cities over 75,000 population ranked Phoenix 302 out of 393. It was well behind Los Angeles, which placed 240th. (higher numbers are worse). Phoenix’s problems are no surprise to your blogger, who as an ATF agent in Arizona during the seventies got to experience the troubled city first-hand. Crunched by a tight economy, with a 2008 median household income two percent below the national mean, Arizona has struggled for decades to deal with the social and economic consequences of being on the border. But to many observers its current response seems an overreaction. Concerns that the law will drain scarce police resources, cause racial profiling and discourage crime victims from coming forward led the Arizona Police Chiefs Association to strongly oppose the measure. On the other hand many lower-ranking police officers, including presidents of police associations in Phoenix and Glendale favor it, in part because it would give officers more tools for combating crime. It’s no surprise that political views about Arizona’s stern approach mirror Party affiliations. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) is for while President Obama, who warned that the Arizona bill would “undermine basic notions of fairness,” is against. Interestingly, his Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, repeatedly vetoed similar legislation when she was Arizona governor, in part because it would “overwhelm” police. Yet in 2005 she declared a “state of emergency” at the border, then sent the National Guard to help secure it. Within a couple of years, though, the Feds decided that physical barriers and a much-ballyhooed “virtual” fence were preferable to a heavy human presence. But only last month Secretary Napolitano called a halt to the multi-billion dollar project because of questions about its effectiveness. Arizona’s senators have since proposed that the money be spent on – you guessed it – troops and additional border agents. Meanwhile the Department of Justice is getting set to challenge Arizona’s new immigrant-unfriendly laws in Federal Court. That, in a nutshell, is America’s border “policy.” If you’re confused, join the crowd! Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS Extreme Measures II America, Gun Purveyor to the Cartels UPDATES 07/28/10 Federal judge enjoins key provisions of the immigration law, including the requirement that police check the status of those whom they suspect of being illegal aliens. Ruling 07/25/10 Houston Chronicle says “years of mounting anger” fueled by disorder, costs of providing health and education services, intrusion of a foreign culture and Federal inaction drove Arizona law. 07/06/10 Citing the Supremacy and Commerce clauses, DOJ sued Arizona in Federal court to enjoin its new immigration law from taking effect because it would “conflict [with] and undermine” the Fed’s balanced approach and distract it from focusing on dangerous aliens. Lawsuit 06/04/10 Crime in Phoenix plummeted during 2008-2009, and it’s now one of the safest four large cities in the U.S. The other three -- San Diego, El Paso and Austin, are also on the border. FBI 05/26/10 Police chiefs from several large cities, including Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, Houston and Minneapolis are urging Attorney General Eric Holder sue to invalidate Arizona’s new law. 05/25/10 President Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the southern border to help interdict drug trafficking. He also wants $500 million to hire more agents and improve technology. 05/12/10 Los Angeles passed an ordinance restricting official travel to Arizona and banning some future contracts. But independent agencies including airports and utilities are unlikely to take part. 05/12/10 A Pew poll finds widespread support across the U.S. for Arizona’s immigration law, even among Democrats, and disapproval for President Obama’s handling of immigration issues. 05/12/10 A new Arizona law bans as divisive the teaching of ethnic studies in public schools. It is targeted, according to a state official, at Chicano studies programs in Tucson. Bill text 05/03/10 Arizona measure amended; to apply only to persons lawfully “stopped, detained or arrested.” Race can be used as a factor in making a stop only as Constitutionally allowed. Bill text 05/02/10 It’s not border violence, says the Arizona Republic, that’s the problem. Instead it’s violence that “leapfrogs” to Tucson and Phoenix, where cartel members commit robberies, home invasions, kidnappings and murders. Still, Arizona’s crime rate has fallen along with the nation’s. 05/01/10 A deputy sheriff who spotted bales of marijuana in a human and drug smuggling route in the southern Arizona desert was shot and wounded by five suspects, who fired on him with a rifle. A police helicopter responding to his aid also came under fire. 04/30/10 Agreeing that the nation’s immigration policy lacks coherence, White House advisor David Axelrod said that “the best thing we can do is to develop and enforce a rational, thoughtful, consistent immigration policy that holds everybody accountable in the system.” 04/29/10 Calling Arizona’s immigration law “unpatriotic and unconstitutional,” L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa urged a boycott. “No person should be treated differently in the eyes of the law,” he said. 04/29/10 “Good, Catholic families” sneak across the border, says an Arizona resident. So do drug smugglers and other criminals. The trouble, he complains, is not knowing “who is who.” 04/27/10 Local officials in L.A. and San Francisco call for an economic boycott of Arizona 04/26/10 Critics say law conflicts with Federal supremacy on immigration; challenges expected Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 2/6/10 Violence is the problem. Is harsh sentencing the solution?
“The three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers’ union and that is sick!” By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Who said that? Here are three possibilities: (1) the ACLU president, (2) the ACLU executive director, or (3) Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, addressing a gathering of lawyers on February 3, 2009 at Pepperdine University’s Odell McConnell Law Center, perched high on a spectacular bluff overlooking the shores of the Pacific. Hmm...let’s see... For someone who’s supposed to keep an open mind Justice Kennedy’s words may seem intemperate. Yet those familiar with his concerns aren’t a bit surprised. A staunch supporter of the police, the third-most senior member of the Court (he joined in 1988) is also a long-standing prison reformist. Justice Kennedy has frequently spoken out against overcrowding and excessively long sentences, which he likes to point out are on the average eight times longer than the European norm. Justice Kennedy’s ire last week was directed at California’s three-strikes law, widely considered to be the toughest in the nation. We’ve already described its two most salient features. First, it’s both a two-strikes and three-strikes law. Persons who are convicted of a new felony after being convicted for a violent or serious felony get their terms doubled; two such priors draw a mandatory 25 years to life. Note that the triggering offense – the new charge, or “strike” – can be any felony, including drugs and theft. It’s no secret that sentencing has become substantially harsher. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 447 per 100,000 adults (18+) were sentenced for felonies in State court in 1990. In 2006 the rate was 503 per 100,000, an increase of 13 percent. More importantly, those sentenced to State prison were serving considerably lengthier terms. Between 1993-2005 the average time served in State prison (all offenses) went up from 21 months to 29, an increase of 38 percent. For violent crimes the increase was from 36 months to 50 (39 percent); for property crimes it was from 17 months to 22 (29 percent). Harsh sentencing goes back several decades. According to the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. the U.S. imprisonment rate (persons in State or Federal custody and sentenced to one year or more, per 100,000 population) was 96 in 1970. It took off four years later and never looked back. By 1980 it had reached 139; in 1990 it was 296 and still climbing. The historical high, a mind-bogging 756 per 100,000 population came in 2007. In that year 2,298,041 persons – nearly one out of every one-hundred Americans – were locked up doing a year or more. (In 2008 the rate dropped ever so slightly, to 754.) As the good justice implied, when it comes to imprisoning its citizens the U.S. is on top (or the bottom, depending on one’s point of view.) According to the authoritative World Prison Population List, our 2007 incarceration rate of 756 was by far the highest on the planet, five times greater than the world rate of 145 per 100,000 and eight times that of Southern and Western Europe’s measly 95. Way behind in second place was Russia, with a barely respectable 629. Other pleasant places like Cuba (531) and Belarus (468) weren’t even in contention. Our chart depicts historical and contemporary violent crime and imprisonment rates per 100,000 population from 1970 to 2008. Comparing the trend lines we see that the well-known surge in violent crime that began in the mid-1970’s substantially outpaced the imprisonment rate until the late 1980’s. It’s generally agreed that by then a punitive mindset had formed, which persisted even as violent crime tumbled. In 1991, as the mayhem reached its zenith, there were 1,911,767 violent crimes, yielding a rate of 758.2 per 100,000. By 2000 the violent crime rate (based on 1,425,486 offenses) was a full one-third lower, at 506.5. A moderate downtrend still persists; 2008’s rate, 454.5, amounts to an additional reduction of ten percent. So here’s the million dollar question: was it punishment that turned things around? While it’s common sense that incapacitating offenders prevents crime, just how much additional value was produced by imprisoning more persons for longer terms? In his conservatively entitled “The Limited Importance of Prison Expansion,” statistician extraordinaire William Spellman estimates that increased imprisonment cut violence twenty-seven percent, a seemingly modest figure until one remembers that there were nearly two million violent crimes at the height of the madness. His endorsement of stiffer sanctions, though, seems half-hearted. One may conclude, with considerable conviction, that the prison buildup was an important contributing factor to the violent-crime drop of the past few years. America would be a much more violent place had billions of dollars not been invested in prison beds; violent crime would not have dropped as far and as fast as it has. Nevertheless, violent crime would have dropped a lot anyway. Most of the responsibility for the crime drop rests with improvements in the economy, changes in the age structure, or other social factors. Whether the key to further reductions lies in further prison expansions, or (more likely) in further improvements in these other factors remains an open question. What could really harsh stuff like three-strikes accomplish? Methodological issues make it difficult to figure out its unique effects. Three recent studies arrive at varying conclusions. In a survey of U.S. three-strikes laws Chen reported slight but statistically significant associations between three-strikes and declines in crime. Notably, California’s law, the harshest of the lot, didn’t fare better than the others. On the other hand, Kovandzic, Sloan and Vieraities found that three-strikes had no impact. (One possibility they cite is that in cases where three-strikes applies, its added sanctions aren’t of sufficient magnitude to stand out.) Finally, Helland and Tabarrok estimate that California’s three-strikes law reduced felony arrests for those with two existing strikes by 17-20 percent. They nonetheless suggested that the money spent on three-strikes is better used elsewhere. Money is a central issue. Thanks to liberalizations brought on by the economic downturn, imprisonment rates in a majority of States stood still or went down between 2007-2008, with reductions of as much as thirty-one prisoners per 100,000 population in Texas and Massachusetts. Still, harsh treatment is unlikely to disappear, and for the most practical of reasons: as we said last week citizens aren’t “averages” – they’re victimized one at a time. If, as Dr. Spellman conceded, stiff sentencing cuts violence by one-fourth, hundreds of thousands could be saved from becoming victims each year. Indeed, a push-back is already underway. In California a jail inmate let go under a new early-release policy then promptly re-arrested for sexual assault became the new poster-child for victim-right groups, while in Oregon the release of a violent inmate who went on to reoffend spurred reassessment of a law expanding good-time credits. Speakers at a recent national conference cautioned against letting financial considerations dictate sentencing. A public-policy expert opposed releasing prisoners just to “return to policies that don’t make sense,” while a State senator called a recent triple murder by a parolee a sharp reminder that he and others hadn’t been taking the threat of violence “as seriously as we should have been.” There’s nothing new about horrible crimes being committed by persons released on bail, or by probationers and parolees. Sure, it’s always possible to tune up the release system, but in the end predicting individual dangerousness is well-nigh impossible. So what about changing people? Well, we can’t force anyone to age out of crime any faster, and as far as making humans kinder and gentler – forget it! But we can throw away the key. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS The Great Debate Why the Drop? RELATED PUBLICATIONS So. Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission study (2010) Report on California Three-Strikes Impacts of State Sentencing Policies UPDATES 07/14/10 LAPD complains that a gang member who was killed in a shootout that left one officer wounded and another hurt had been placed on unmonitored, “non-revocable” parole after serving only two years of a two-year term for drugs, evading police and possessing a gun and silencer. 06/29/10 A man paroled in 2006 after doing 15 years for a knife murder stabbed four to death. He was living in a halfway house after being revoked for not completing an anger management course. 06/24/10 Richmond officials and the Feds tout the effectiveness of stiff gun and drug sentencing in tamping down violence. But an academic thinks the lock-’em up mentality is counterproductive. 06/21/10 On June 10 three-time loser Cyril Williams was arrested for murdering a Maryland trooper. Williams had been paroled on a drug conviction in April 2008; thanks to good-time credits he did less than half his time. Attempted murder and gun charges had also been dropped. 05/29/10 Charlie Samuel pleads guilty to killing Lily Burk, gets life without parole 05/17/10 Supreme Court says “no” to life without parole for juveniles who don’t kill, “yes” to the indeterminate, post-imprisonment civil commitment of dangerous sexual offenders. 04/30/10 Arrest of a man for attempted rape shortly after his release is why California legislators are now set to repeal a money-saving measure granting extra good time (see 2/10/10 entry, below). 04/22/10 Speaking in favor of better risk-assessment strategies, noted criminologist Lawrence Sherman said that extreme examples (e.g., Willie Horton) have led officials to over-predict high risk, leading to prison overcrowding. 04/16/10 As required by law, a 34- year old Nevada woman was sentenced to life for having a boy under 14 touch her breasts. She will be eligible for parole after ten years. 04/13/10 Entitled “Chelsea’s Law” after a teen who was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender, a California bill would sharply increase penalties for sexually abusing children, setting steep minimums and in aggravated circumstances mandating life without parole. 03/17/10 According to the PEW Center, the State prison inmate count dropped in 2009 by 5,739, a .4 percent reduction and the first since 1972. But the overall prison count still rose by 1,099 due to a sharp uptick in the number of Federal prisoners. 03/12/10 John Gardner, a registered sex offender arrested for the rape and murder of San Diego-area teen Chelsea King, had been kept on parole despite repeated technical violations. 03/10/10 Complaining of poorly vetted and supervised early releases, LAPD union cites “low-level parolee” with 19 prior arrests, including murder, who threw rifle out a window during a wild pursuit. 03/09/10 To save money Michigan Governor urges repealing Truth in Sentencing provision that requires convicted persons serve at least their minimum term in prison. But many disagree. 03/08/10 Private study suggests that when measured accurately and for a longer period, recidivism is worse than official statistics indicate, with eight out of ten released inmates being reimprisoned. 03/05/10 New York Times reviews nationwide backlash against proposals to save money by releasing inmates early 02/26/10 Furious Michigan prosecutors protest against early parole of hundreds of violent inmates; say it’s no way to save money. 02/25/10 Releasing inmates early is politically risky, vesting ownership of the consequences on decision-makers, warns Todd Clear, new dean at the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice. But early outs don’t increase the likelihood of reoffending -- they just “change the date,” he adds. 02/23/10 In Massachusetts a recently paroled murderer, 60, kills a convenience store clerk, just like he did the first time around. 02/22/10 In “Why Crime Rates Fell,” Tufts sociologist John Conklin claims that half the crime drop is due to incapacitation by imprisonment. Others say an aging population is a better reason. 02/10/10 A newly amended California law (PC 4019) gives one-for-one credit for jailed non-violent offenders and one-for-four for those in prison, drawing protests from police, DA’s and judges. 02/08/10 So. Carolina Sentencing commission grapples with reducing incarceration costs while keeping citizens safe 2008-09 series of articles on parole failures 02/08/10 Michigan prosecutor accuses Governor, who has been releasing prison inmates “at a record rate” of making rushed, potentially unsafe decisions 02/08/10 Six Los Angeles gang members got life in Federal prison and many others received long terms as authorities dismantled a violent street gang connected with the Mexican Mafia Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 1/31/10 Who should go to prison? For how long?
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. On December 6, 2009 police in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb, confronted Boneetio Washington, a transient on felony probation, on a complaint that he tried to break into a home. Officers didn’t feel there was enough evidence and let him go. His freedom didn’t last long. Two days later LAPD officers arrested Washington moments after he allegedly forced his way into an apartment and raped and murdered its occupant, a woman pregnant with twins. Washington’s prior conviction had also been for breaking into a woman’s apartment. Confined to jail and a mental hospital for a year awaiting trial, he pled guilty and was sentenced to time served and three years probation. By then the 22-year old had amassed a record of similar crimes, including arrests and at least one conviction for breaking and entering, larceny and assault in his native Rhode Island and, as recently as 2006, in North Carolina. Considering Washington’s criminal history why had California authorities dealt with him so leniently? Unnamed sources told the Los Angeles Times that there was “nothing in his past that appeared to show a predisposition to the kind of violence he is now accused of committing.” Here’s another L.A. story. In 2006 Charles Samuel snuck into the residence of the man who was dating Samuel’s estranged wife. He confronted and beat up the man and stole some small things. Already a two-time loser (he had served six years for a 1986 incident in which he kidnapped an elderly man to get him to withdraw cash from an ATM, resulting in convictions for residential burglary and robbery) Samuel was nonetheless allowed to plead guilty to felony theft. Although that lapse was attributed to a “clerical error,” Samuel had told a probation officer that the bargain avoided his being charged with a third strike, which in California generally calls for a mandatory 25-to-life (P.C. 667e). Samuel was paroled to a drug rehab facility after two years. On July 24, 2009 he got permission to go to the downtown DMV office. A 17-year old high school senior, Lily Burk, was also downtown, running an errand for her lawyer mother. Her mutilated body was later found in the family Volvo. In a horrific incident that parallels his earlier crime, Samuel has been charged with kidnapping Burk to get her to withdraw money from an ATM, then in a rage slashing her to death with a broken bottle. Forty years ago prison sentences were indeterminate, with the actual number of years to be served set by parole boards and commissions after the fact. While penalties looked stiff on paper, felony offenders sentenced to prison wound up serving, on average, only 38 percent of the top end of the range imposed by a judge (for violent offenders, it was 46 percent; for property offenders, 34 percent.) During the 1970’s and 80’s inner-city violence, much of it related to a booming crack trade, led to calls for “getting tough on crime.” Spurred by Federal grants, State legislatures responded with “truth in sentencing” laws that constricted sentencing ranges and cut back on good-time and other credits, narrowing the gap between what judges imposed and what was actually served. By the early nineties a majority of States and the District of Columbia required that prisoners serve at least 85 percent of their terms before release. In 1994 violent felons served, on average, less than one half their terms; by 2004 it was two thirds. More defendants were also being convicted and incarcerated. There were 893,630 felony convictions in State courts in 1990. By 2006 the figure was 1,132,290; adjusted for population growth, it represented a net increase of 13 percent. Yet the toughening wasn’t as severe as it might seem. While the number of convictions was up, and the disparity between sentencing and actual time served was reduced, penalties under the new determinate sentencing model were also lower, meaning that inmates wound up serving about the same amount of time as before. How much time do offenders serve? Keeping in mind differences between States, in 2006, the most recent year with full data, slightly more than half (54 percent) of violent offenders went to prison. Not including life terms, their sentences averaged 96 months. Minus fifteen-percent good-time credit that comes to 81.6 months, or nearly seven years. Terms for aggravated assault were substantially lower, for robbery and sex crimes somewhat higher, and for murder much higher. But citizens aren’t “averages.” They’re victimized one at a time. On October 1, 1993, Petaluma (Calif.) resident Polly Klaas, 12, was kidnapped and brutally murdered. A parolee, Richard Allen Davis, was quickly arrested for the crime. He admitted killing the girl and police collected abundant evidence of his guilt. Davis was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. He’s still on death row. Polly’s murder shocked the nation. Citizens were particularly roiled by the killer’s record, which included a 1974 conviction for multiple burglaries (he got six months to 15 years and served two years), a 1976 conviction for kidnapping and assault (he got one to 25 years and did six), and a 1985 conviction for robbery and extortion (he got 16 years and did eight.) How could someone like that have been released at all, let alone after only serving half his term? The anger was quickly transformed into legislation. Enacted in 1994 by popular vote, Proposition 184, the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” initiative provides enhanced penalties for persons convicted of any felony, including property and drug crimes, if they have been previously convicted of a violent or “serious” felony (examples of the latter include burglary of an occupied dwelling and robbery). Those with a single such past conviction get their new term doubled (PC 667[e] [1]), while those with two or more qualifying convictions get a minimum of 25 to life (PC 667[e] [2] [A]). There is one exception: prosecutors can, “in the interests of justice,” choose to ignore prior “strikes” when accepting pleas to new crimes. Polly Klaas was murdered before three-strikes. But what about the two killers mentioned at the top of this post? Boneetio Washington had only one “strike” before he murdered the pregnant woman, so three-strikes would not have kept him off the street. Samuel, on the other hand, had at least one and possibly two strikes when he pled guilty to felony theft, yet prosecutors for some reason chose not to charge the priors, so he was freed well before Lily Burk ran her fateful errand. Next week we’ll examine three-strikes in greater detail. Stay tuned! Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS The Great Debate II Why the Drop? UPDATES Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 1/24/10 TINKERING WITH THE MACHINERY OF DEATH* Academics prove that the death penalty works. And that it doesn’t.
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. When ASC members opened the November 2009 issues of the society’s two publications, stodgy old Criminology and the supposedly more real-world Criminology and Public Policy, they must have felt dizzied. Criminology’s lead piece, “The Short-Term Effects of Executions on Homicide,” by Land, Teske and Zheng, concludes that capital punishment works, at least in Texas, preventing .5 to 2.5 homicides per execution. Meanwhile, in Criminology & Public Policy, Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Boots answer the question posed by their article, “Does the Death Penalty Save Lives?” with a resounding no, that it doesn’t. Indeed, the differences in opinion seem unusually sharp, with C&PP Senior Editor John Donohue flat-out asserting in his introductory remarks that “no credible evidence exists” that the death penalty deters homicide. Whoa – it’s not that simple! Decades of research have produced findings supporting both sides of the debate. Some of the squabbling can be attributed to differences between disciplines. Economists, who believe that criminal behavior is influenced by cost-benefit analyses, tend to favor the death penalty, while traditional criminologists, preferring to think that they take a broader, more nuanced view, often come out against. Either way, crunching the numbers presents a major challenge. While executions are exceedingly few, homicide is plentiful and influenced by many factors, so teasing out the unique effects (if any) of the former on the latter stretches the statistical arts, some would say to the breaking point. As far back as 1978 a book-length report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences panned death-penalty studies for, among other things, making “implausible” assumptions about the data for the sake of applying sophisticated statistical techniques. (For a skeptic’s more recent review of death penalty research click here and scroll to page 4.) Alas, concerns about over-reaching haven’t slowed investigators down. On reading these pieces one quickly encounters methodological complexities that are impenetrable to all but trained statisticians. Forgive the pun, but the impression is of a mathematical duel to the death. Writing in the same issue of Criminology and Public Policy that published the article favoring the death penalty (Criminology doesn’t include opposing views) here is what Emory University economist Paul Rubin had to say: In sum, Kovandzic et al. (2009) change the model specification, estimation method, as well as both the dependent and independent variables used by earlier death penalty studies that report deterrence, and they find no deterrence....To prove their assertions, Kovandzic et al. instead should have established, with rigor, that their results are derived from more appropriate statistical models and must, therefore, be the correct one. Moreover, their statistical methods are unjustified and, at times, inappropriate. Their assertion about the lack of a deterrent effect is, therefore, unwarranted given their evidence. (p. 858) After finishing off his enemy with a slide rule, Dr. Rubin goes on to suggest that (horrors!) human bias is likely at work: Most murders occur in poor neighborhoods and among relatively uneducated persons, often with risky lifestyles. An element of elitism may be present in academic recommendations for abolishing the death penalty, because others will bear the costs. (p. 858) Yes, where one stands undoubtedly influences what one sees. But as the frailty of the adjudicative system has become well recognized, minds have changed for the best of reasons. In Texas, the hang ‘em high State that hosts nearly half of America’s executions, one barometer of the public mood, the Dallas Morning News, recently came out against the death penalty. It used to strongly favor it: It's hard to imagine that, at the start of this decade, it was legal to execute people for crimes they committed as children, to execute the mentally retarded and to bring racial biases into jury-selection processes. The Supreme Court righted those wrongs and, for the first time, established that post-conviction DNA evidence could be considered in the appeals process. And in Texas, life without parole – or ‘death by prison,’ as we like to call it – finally became an option for juries. These are all signs that courts, prosecutors, politicians and the public are recognizing the problems in our imperfect system of justice. This newspaper feels more strongly than ever that those flaws are sufficiently widespread that the justice system cannot be trusted to impose irreversible sentences of death... If, as most criminologists believe, punishment deters, then it’s probably true that fear of being put to death has prevented some murders. But that presumed benefit alone isn’t dispositive. State-sanctioned killing is a political and moral issue that goes to the heart of the relationship between the people and their government. Capital punishment is also replete with racial and socioeconomic disparities. Simply put, if you can’t afford a good lawyer, better break open that Bible. What’s more, it’s become painfully clear that the justice system does goof, sometimes in a big way. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 139 death-row prisoners have been exonerated since 1973. To date the Innocence Project reports 249 DNA-based exonerations, including seventeen on death row. It’s likely that our contemporary justice system has executed innocent persons. (For an example, click here.) Surely, such blunders are unforgivable. Yet as the article in Criminology suggests, enjoying Texas-sized benefits requires ramping up the threat of execution to Texas-size levels. Naturally, that might increase the frequency of tragic mistakes. To what extent is impossible to estimate. Dead men tell no tales, and since we don’t track miscarriages of justice until they’re officially acknowledged, the error rate remains a cipher. (It’s analogous to the problem that plagues deterrence research. We don’t know who’s deterred, so how can we be sure how or if deterrence works?) Considering its problems one would be hard-pressed to support the death penalty just because of its reported effects in Texas. But what if the benefits could be extended to the rest of the country? In 2009 the Lone Star State (pop. 24,782,302) put twenty-four persons to death, or approximately one per million. Applying that ratio to the U.S. (pop. 307,006,550) calls for about 300 executions per year. Using the benefit range reported by Kovandzic et al. that would save from 150 to 750 lives, yielding, based on 16,272 murders reported in 2008, an overall reduction in homicide from .9 to 4.6 percent. Hmm. Executing two dozen persons each month might not be a problem in China or North Korea, but could we stomach that in the U.S.A.? Keep in mind that according to the deterrence paradox we can’t know whose lives are saved, so stirring up public support might be problematic. Really, given the controversies about its fairness, doubts about its effectiveness, and the likelihood of wrongful executions, expanding the use of the death penalty seems unlikely and unwise. With fifteen States and D.C. having already abolished capital punishment, it may be time for the U.S. to quit “tinkering” and join the E.U. and the rest of the civilized world in doing away with this throwback to the Dark Ages altogether. * Adapted from Justice Blackmun’s famous words in Callins v. James (1994): “From this day forward, I no longer will tinker with the machinery of death.” Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 06/18/10 Twenty-five years after murdering a Utah man, Ronnie Lee Gardner, 49, was executed by his method of choice, a firing squad. But it’s the delay -- not the method -- that’s brought on furious criticism from both sides of the death penalty debate. 06/08/10 Thirty-two years after bullets from his AK-47 rifle pierced the vest of Austin police officer Ralph Ablanedo, his killer, David Powell, faces execution. Some say that justice so delayed is meaningless; others, including the dead officer’s colleagues and survivors, say it’s about time. 04/01/10 Excluding China, where several thousand persons were reportedly put to death, Amnesty International estimates that at least 714 persons were executed in 18 countries in 2009. Rounding out the top five were Iran (388), Iraq (120), Saudi Arabia (69), and the U.S. (52). 03/10/10 Serious errors in investigation and prosecution have led to a new trial for a New Orleans man sentenced to death for the 2006 murder of five. A study reveals that of 36 death sentences in New Orleans since 1976 five persons were exonerated and two others were acquitted on retrial. Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 12/6/09 Can dangerous out-of-State parolees be adequately supervised?
Where once stood a young (16) year old misguided fool, who's (sic) own life he was unable to rule. Now stands a 27 year old man, who has learned through 'the school of hard knocks' to appreciate and respect the rights of others. And who has in the midst of the harsh reality of prison life developed the necessary skills to stand along (sic) and not follow a multitude to do evil, as I did as a 16 year old child. By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Maurice Clemmons was eleven years into a ninety-five year sentence for armed robbery, burglary and other crimes when his words stirred former Arkansas Governor and one-time Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to grant him clemency. Convicted when only seventeen, Clemmons was paroled against the advice of prosecutors who feared that the explosively violent youth was still dangerous. “Mr. Huckabee made him parole-eligible twenty-one years before he would have been,” Larry Jegley, the current D.A. said in a recent interview. “Otherwise, he'd [still] be cooling his heels in the Department of Corrections.” Clemmons certainly wouldn’t have been in position to murder four Lakewood (Wash.) police officers last week. But he was, and he did. It took less than a year for Clemmons to break his promise to the Governor. In July 2001 the supposedly reformed man landed back in prison for robbery. He wound up doing three years for parole violation, while the robbery charge was dismissed because of an administrative blunder. Clemmons was released in 2004 and his supervision was transferred to the State of Washington. Shortly before relocating Clemmons reportedly robbed a man at gunpoint but wasn’t charged because the victim stopped cooperating with police. His criminal ways continued. In 2005 the Feds linked Clemmons, then living in Tacoma, to an interstate drug trafficking ring. Clemmons was detained for a mental evaluation. Despite outbursts, threats to kill jail workers and self-reported hallucinatory episodes about “people drinking blood and people eating babies, and lawless on the streets, like people were cannibals” a judge ultimately declared him competent to stand trial and set bail at $190,000. On November 24, 2009 Clemmons and his friends forked over a tidy ten percent to a bail agent and he was let go. He would kill the officers five days later. What about the parole warrant? Despite Washington’s protests, Arkansas dropped the no-bail provision. They later explained their decision (which saved them having to pay for their ward’s return) as being motivated, in part, by the fact that Washington seemed so blasé about Clemmons that it had him on unsupervised status before his arrest. To find another parole transfer that went horribly wrong we need look no further than Phillip Garrido. In 1977 Garrido drew a 50-year Federal term for kidnapping and a concurrent five years to life in Nevada for rape. Twenty-two years later, after serving eleven years in Federal and Nevada prisons and another eleven on Federal parole, his supervision was transferred to Nevada. A few months later, in June 1999, it was transferred to California. What authorities didn’t know was that Garrido had kidnapped an eleven-year old girl eight years earlier and, helped by his wife, was holding the teen and the two daughters he fathered with her as captives. And that’s where things were in August 2009 when a suspicious cop who saw Garrido with the children ran his name and discovered he was a registered sex offender. Parole agents detained Garrido, then released him with instructions to return the next day. Amazingly he did so, bringing along his wife, the kidnap victim and the two kids. Both women lied their heads off – the kidnap victim said she was an abused wife on the run – and had it not been for the intercession of a local officer who got Garrido to admit the truth the fiend would still likely be free. How is it that a registered sex offender who kept a young woman and two children penned up in a shack could avoid being caught for a decade? A recent State investigative report suggests that California had little interest in the man. Only five months after his arrival agents began trying to get Nevada to release him from supervision. Ignoring the many red flags in his thick Federal parole file, they inexplicably construed Garrido’s most serious offense (kidnapping) as “non-sexual.” Categorized as a low-risk offender, Garrido was only visited once to three times per year, a clear violation of even the most permissive rules. Even in 2008, when Garrido’s status was upgraded and he was fitted with a GPS, a lack of concern persisted, and alerts about his unauthorized wanderings and the device being repeatedly turned off were ignored. Disinterest in Garrido was evident on the few occasions when agents actually visited. Not only did they miss the utility wires that ran to the shed where the kidnapped teen and the children lived, but when they encountered one of the kids in the house they took Garrido’s word that she was his brother’s daughter. Had agents checked with neighbors they would have learned that one had spoken with the kidnap victim through the fence. Had they bothered to compare notes with local police they would have discovered that an officer was called to the residence in 2006 by a neighbor who said that Garrido was a sex addict and had children living in tents in his backyard. But they didn’t. It’s impossible to draw conclusions from a sample of two. Still, considering how poorly these indisputably serious offenders were “supervised” one can’t help but be skeptical of parole oversight in general and of out-of-State offenders in particular. A 1998 study of the compact governing interstate parole faulted receiving and sending States, the former for being slow to report misconduct and the latter for their reluctance in retaking violators. One frustrated manager complained that savvy offenders took advantage of the situation, “[making] supervision a waste of time and a mockery to the criminal justice system as a whole.” Serious problems were reported for high-risk parolees and particularly sex offenders, for whom special transfer policies and controls did not exist. To address these and other issues a new Interstate Compact was put into place in 2000. Did things change for the better? A 2008 “compliance issues survey” lists “failure to retake an offender” as agents’ third most frequent complaint. For lovers distance might make the heart grow fonder, but in the criminal justice system it mostly breeds contempt. Parole agencies are primarily concerned with their own clients, who after all constitute their funding base. Legal differences between jurisdictions and uncooperative judges can make it difficult to keep problematic out-of-State parolees locked up long enough to sort out the means of their return. Even agents who want to do the right thing are hampered by information gaps and the pressures of everyday business. Really, in times of diminishing resources transferring supervision of dangerous offenders to distant jurisdictions with different laws, procedures and priorities flies in the face of reason. It’s just another recipe for disaster. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS Hidden in Plain Sight Missed Signals Doing Nothing, Redux UPDATES 06/07/10 Thanks to competition between bail-bond firms, Maurice Clemmons got out three times by posting less than the normal ten percent, even paying in installments. Six days before killing the officers a $190,000 bond for rape, assault and other felonies was issued for only $8,000 in cash. 04/09/10 Family members of the slain officers are suing Pierce County, alleging that had officials listened to Maurice Clemmons’ taped jail phone calls they would have learned that he intended to kill police officers. Taped phone calls 03/22/10 California sets minimum standards for tracking paroled sex offenders wearing GPS. Low-level clients must now be tracked at least four times a month, while high-risk offenders, who are already tracked daily, must be visited at least twice a month. 02/15/10 Calling from jail Clemmons told his wife that he would carry a gun and kill the first officer who stopped him. The call was first listened to recently when tapes were released to the press. 12/31/09 Washington corrections officials lost track of Clemmons after he posted bail Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 10/18/09 In the industrial belt, poverty and violence are no joke
“The Mayor of Newark, New Jersey wants to set up a citywide program to improve residents’ health. The health care program would consist of a bus ticket out of Newark.” By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. NBC Tonight Show host Conan O’Brien’s little joke brought on a You-Tube scolding by Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who banned the talk show host from the Newark airport. His move precipitated a series of back-and-forths that culminated in the mayor’s October 16 appearance on O’Brien’s show. More on that later. Booker, then 37, was elected in 2006 over an obscure rival after the boss of the local Democratic machine, mayor Sharpe James announced his departure from politics. (One year later James stood convicted of corruption.) Their earlier match-up in 2002, which Booker lost by a hair, was depicted in “Street Fight”, an acclaimed documentary about the youngish Stanford grad’s passionate though unsuccessful campaign. Quickly moving to improve city services, Booker brought in a new police director to rejuvenate what many considered a moribund department. A renewed emphasis on fighting crime and reducing the city’s appalling murder rate have earned plaudits from residents and business owners. Yet not everything is well. Historical declines in manufacturing and now, the recession have devastated the old cities of the Northeast, with unemployment reaching 14.7 percent in Newark, an eye-popping 17 percent in Camden and 11.1 percent in Baltimore. Does unemployment breed violent crime? Judging by these communities one might think so. According to the Uniform Crime Reports Newark, pop. 279,788, had 67 homicides in 2008, yielding a rate of 23.9, nearly four times New York City’s (pop. 8,345,075, 523 homicides, rate 6.3). Camden, pop. 76,182, had a startling 54 homicides. Its rate, 70.9, was three times Newark’s and more than eleven times New York City’s. Baltimore’s homicide rate, 36.9, was one and one-half times Newark’s and an appalling six times New York City’s. Differences in how localities count aggravated assault, robbery and rape make those figures less comparable. Back to Newark. As Mayor Booker likes to claim, crime has dropped during his tenure. Now it’s merely terrible. And there are disturbing signs that violence may be on the upswing. According to statistics just posted on the Newark PD website three of four violent crime categories are up from 2008: robbery, by thirteen percent; homicide, eleven percent; and rape, two percent. Aggravated assaults are down five percent. Newark (and Camden, and Baltimore) have suffered for a long time. But no matter how bad their problems are, we -- meaning those of us who don’t live there -- accept them with hardly a shrug. Conditions that should sicken and move us to act become “the new normal,” to be set aside until they’re dragged out as comedic fodder, to be laughed about and forgotten about all over again.. Left, the Jokester’s $10.5 million Brentwood Paradise. Right, Newark public housing. Your blogger originally intended to write some really nasty things about rich white guys with no social conscience. Then the redoubtable Bob Herbert came to the rescue. In an excellent column he set out all the right reasons why we should care about places like Newark. He even held out hope that by bringing the situation to everyone’s attention Conan the Jokester’s nasty little quip might actually prove beneficial. That’s not quite the end of the story. As we mentioned earlier Mayor Booker appeared as a guest on the Tonight Show. By all accounts O’Brien behaved well. He even set himself up to take one on the chin: “Many jokes are made about Newark by comedians. You honed in on me like a cruise missile. Why me, Mayor Booker?” “When there’s a herd going after you, you have to sort of look at the weakest gazelle.” O’Brien then did what comes natural to a rich guy caught with his jammies down: he paid his way out, in this case by pledging $100,000 to a Newark charity. Hmm, let’s see. One-hundred G’s is about seven-tenths of one percent of O’Brien’s yearly $14 million hosting salary. Actually, if Conan itemizes his deductions, as one assumes he must, he’s out chump change: $65,000, or one-half of one percent of his annual take for smirking on TV. By way of comparison, it’s also twice Newark’s median 2007 household income of $34,452, and four times its per capita income of $16,782. That, if you didn’t realize, was the punch line. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS A Tale of Three Cities A Very Dubious Achievement Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 6/28/09 WHAT REALLY WENT ON AT NEVERLAND? Distrustful of the State’s witnesses, jurors could only wonder:
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. In 2004, one year after appearing in the documentary, the 13-year old who snuggled with Michael Jackson was testifying before the Santa Barbara County (Calif.) grand jury: Q. All right. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the Grand Jury the conversation? Lean into the microphone and tell them about it. More than a decade earlier, in 1993, another 13-year old boy had told a similar story: “Physical contact between Michael Jackson and myself increased gradually. The first step was simply Michael Jackson hugging me. The next step was for him to give me a brief kiss on the cheek. He then started kissing me on the lips, first briefly and then for a longer period of time. He would kiss me while we were in bed together....” This excerpt (it turns very graphic) isn’t from a criminal case. It’s from an affidavit in a civil lawsuit accusing Jackson of having sex with the victim at Neverland and a string of motels. Jackson quickly settled the matter for a cool $15 million. Criminal charges were never filed, supposedly because the victim wouldn’t cooperate with police. In 2003, beset by heavy debt and litigation, with his career stalled, Michael Jackson agreed to be in a documentary. Released in 2003, Martin Bashir’s “Living With Michael Jackson” didn’t have the effect that the singer intended. Depicted enjoying the high life in Neverland, his rococo Santa Barbara estate, and in Las Vegas and Berlin, where he dangled his surrogate newborn out a window, the troubled pop star came across as a profligate spender, hopeless narcissist and questionable parent. Questions about his upbringing unleashed a torrent of self-pity, replete with chilling tales of ghastly physical and emotional abuse by a brutal, domineering father. Seen in that light, Jackson’s peccadilloes, including his preference for the company of children, made a certain sense. And that’s where things would have ended had the filmmaker not decided, at the last moment, to confront Jackson about certain nasty rumors. Michael Jackson was not the iconic figure that reactions to his passing now suggest. His eccentricities had alienated many fans. Carried on prime-time TV, the accounts of sleep-overs and his hand-holding intimacy with the boy caused a scandal, forcing authorities to investigate. Jackson fought back with a rebuttal video in which the boy and his family gave glowing accounts of the performer’s character and good works. It was during this time that the molestations allegedly occurred. (His mother, Janet Arvizo, testified that Jackson was so determined to keep the family away from police that he forced them to remain in Neverland, warned that “killers” were on their trail and even offered to relocate everyone to Brazil.) Jackson was charged in a ten-count indictment. Count one accused him and unnamed staff members with child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. There were also four counts of committing lewd acts on a child under the age of fourteen; one count of attempting to have the victim commit a lewd act on Jackson; and four counts of administering liquor to facilitate the commission of these crimes. His conviction seemed a foregone conclusion. Yet the State’s case was shaky from the start. Defense lawyers gathered receipts proving that instead of being held incommunicado, as she claimed, Mrs. Arvizo was shopping up a storm using Neverland credit cards. Defense investigators dredged up evidence that injuries she supposedly sustained years earlier, when a son was caught shoplifting, weren’t caused by brutal store detectives but by her former husband. (J.C. Penney’s gave her a large cash settlement and dropped charges.) She was also facing allegations (later, charges) of welfare fraud, which in a memorable moment led her to take the Fifth. Jay Leno even took the stand to say he had turned her away from The Tonight Show when it seemed that she was obsessed with money. Prosecutors were allowed to buttress their case with evidence that Jackson had molested other children. Unfortunately the victim/millionaire whose affidavit is quoted above slipped off to Europe, where he remained for the trial’s duration. But another man, the son of a former maid, gave compelling testimony of being molested by Jackson when he was ten. His family, though, had also benefited from a civil settlement, to the reported tune of $2 million. One of Jackson’s former security guards testified that funny things went on between his boss and several kids, including Macaulay Culkin. But when Culkin took the stand he only had good things to say about Jackson: the sleepovers, he insisted, were perfectly innocent. The victim’s testimony had mixed results. He did say that Jackson masturbated him twice. But he conceded telling his friends and teachers, out of shame, that nothing happened. His testimony that only his mother seemed troubled about living in Neverland badly weakened the prosecution’s “abduction” theory. More curiously, he also said that his grandmother told him that men need to masturbate, the same comment he earlier attributed to Jackson. After four months and 140 witnesses the case went to the jury. A week later they returned their verdict: innocent on all counts. Jurors were of two minds. First and foremost, they loathed Ms. Arvizo. “What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen?” asked a female juror, referring to the sleepovers. They also thought the evidence thin. “We expected better evidence, something that was a little more convincing. It just wasn't there.” Yet there was no appetite for simply declaring Jackson innocent. Indeed, one juror, Raymond Hultman, went so far as to suggest the opposite. “I think that Michael Jackson probably has molested boys. But that doesn't make him guilty of the charges in this case.” Blowback was severe. Pundits and mainstream media ridiculed the verdicts and questioned the jury’s competency. In a stinging rebuke, the Los Angeles Times huffed about Jackson’s “weirdness” and “unpalatable taste for the tawdry.” (It later compared his acquittal to those of O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake, attributing them to the vagaries of juror personalities.) In the midst of the furor two jurors went public, suggesting they were now of a mind to convict Jackson. One was Juror Hultman.
Fast-forward four years. Heavily indebted, with his beloved Neverland on the chopping block, Michael Jackson was yesterday’s news. But then he did something really outrageous: he died. A media frenzy broke out, the likes of which we haven’t experienced since a skinny black guy with a nice smile became Prez. Here’s what Los Angeles Times media columnist Timothy Rutten is trying to figure out: ...Yet on cable TV and on newspaper websites, it was all Michael, all the time. So, how did a pop singer heavily in debt and desperately hoping for a comeback, one who hadn't really sold any music for years, one who was best known for his bizarre life, obsession with cosmetic surgery and for the allegations of pedophilia against him, become in death the most beloved media figure since JFK? Beats me. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 6/7/09 WITH SOME MISTAKES THERE’S NO GOING BACK In capital cases finality of the process must take a back seat
The majority of the affidavits support the defense’s theory that, after Coles raced to the police station to implicate Davis, the police directed all of their energy towards building a case against Davis, failing to investigate the possibility that Coles himself was the actual murderer. For example, none of the photospreads shown to eyewitnesses even included a picture of Coles. Additionally, three affiants now state that Coles confessed to the killing. To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional. By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. These aren’t the words of a crusading reporter or ACLU lawyer. They’re from the minority opinion in a recent decision by the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting a petition by Troy Davis to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Roll back twenty years. During the early morning hours of August 19, 1989 Davis, Coles and a juvenile named Collins asked a homeless man for some of his beer. When the man refused he was struck in the head with a gun butt. Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail chased Davis and Coles. During the encounter he was shot and killed. Later that morning Coles went to police and fingered Davis. The case was tried two years later. The facts seemed compelling. Four eyewitnesses, including Coles, testified that Davis was the shooter. Two others said that Davis confessed. The homeless man identified Davis as his assailant. What’s more, ballistics matched the fatal rounds to bullets from a shooting that took place hours earlier (that victim survived.) Davis, the State suggested, was responsible for not one shooting but two. There was no physical evidence other than bullets. Davis was convicted of the officer’s murder and sentenced to death. In time Davis’ new defense team poked holes in the case. Two of the four eyewitnesses said they never got a good look at the shooter but were pressed by police to identify Davis. Both witnesses who said that Davis confessed took it back. Defense investigators also dredged up three new witnesses, each of whom gave affidavits swearing that Coles admitted killing the officer. Coles and an eyewitness named Steve Sanders held firm. Only problem is, Sanders originally told police that he couldn’t ID the killer, so he was never shown the photospread and only picked out Davis at the trial. By then, of course, the defendant was well known. In March 2008 the Georgia Supreme Court refused to grant Davis an evidentiary hearing. Justices were badly split, with four against and three in favor. Those who prevailed felt that on balance the trial testimony was more credible, particularly as the recanters didn’t actually say that Davis was innocent. The losing side’s views were summarized by Chief Justice Lea Ward Sears: While the majority wisely decides to look beyond bare legal principles and seeks to consider the strength of Davis’s new evidence, I believe that it has weighed that evidence too lightly. In this case, nearly every witness who identified Davis as the shooter at trial has now disclaimed his or her ability to do so reliably. Three persons have stated that Sylvester Coles confessed to being the shooter...Perhaps these witnesses’ testimony would prove incredible if a hearing were held...But the collective effect of all of Davis’s new testimony, if it were to be found credible by the trial court in a hearing, would show the probability that a new jury would find reasonable doubt of Davis’s guilt or at least sufficient residual doubt to decline to impose the death penalty.
Once there’s a conviction the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. To justify a post-conviction evidentiary hearing Georgia law requires that “the new evidence [must] be so material that it would probably produce a different verdict.” By the slimmest of margins, the judges thought not. Davis appealed their decision to the US Supreme Court (it agreed to review the matter only two hours before his scheduled execution.) Having done so, it too declined to intervene. Davis then applied to the Eleventh Circuit for leave to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In a 2-1 decision against Davis the prevailing justices disparaged the merits of his case: All told, the testimony by [eyewitnesses] Murray and Sanders remains; the two other eyewitnesses do not now implicate anyone, much less Coles; Coles continues to implicate Davis; and the testimony of Larry Young [homeless man] and Valerie Coles [Coles’ sister] still collides with Davis’s. When we view all of this evidence as a whole, we cannot honestly say that Davis can establish by clear and convincing evidence that a jury would not have found him guilty of Officer MacPhail’s murder...As the record shows, both the state trial court and the Supreme Court of Georgia have painstakingly reviewed, and rejected, Davis’s claim of innocence. Likewise, Georgia’s State Board of Pardons and Paroles thoroughly reviewed, and rejected, his claim, even conducting further research and bringing in witnesses to hear their recantations in person.... As a last ditch effort, on May 19, 2009 Davis filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the US Supreme Court. And that’s where his case stands. State and Federal courts have ruled that Davis isn’t entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his new evidence would not, in their opinions, have affected his trial’s outcome. Yet it’s precisely in capital cases where referring to long-past judgments by admittedly fallible juries is morally unsatisfying. Actually, many prosecutors would probably agree. Only problem is, when physical evidence is lacking the passage of time can seriously erode the State’s ability to present a compelling case, let alone counter new claims. It’s not an idle concern. Based on the public record and his own experiences, the blogger thinks it more likely than not that Davis is guilty. He also believes that Davis stands an excellent chance of being acquitted if retried. On the other hand, maybe Davis really is innocent. Yet on retrial he could be convicted anew. Georgia’s Chief Justice, who clearly thinks him innocent, suggested that a new jury might at least spare his execution, if not grant an outright acquittal. It’s a nice thought, but not something on which a genuinely innocent person would want to rest their hopes. If the death penalty is to be retained, how can we help assure that it’s justly applied?
We depend on police, prosecutors and the courts to protect the innocent, deter potential violators and provide a sense of closure to victims and families. Yet the law has become an impossibly complex insider’s game that can obscure if not displace the greater moral values it’s meant to uphold. Fears that the legal process rather than facts are driving Davis’s execution explain why his pleadings have, rightly or not, drawn such extraordinary international support. It’s something that America, which offers itself as a model of enlightened justice, can’t afford to ignore. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 06/24/10 On the second and last day of the hearing, the judge chastized Davis’ lawyers for not putting Coles on the stand and refused to let more witnesses testify that he confessed. The lawyers said they tried to serve him on 6/23 but couldn’t find him, but the judge pointed out they had months. Savannah officers testified that their investigation was meticulous, and the prosecutor said that evidence of Davis’ guilt was “overwhelming”. A ruling is expected in July. 06/23/10 On the first day of Davis’ hearing, two witnesses who testified that he confessed, Jeffrey Sapp and Kevin McQueen, swore that they lied, Sapp under police pressure, and McQueen to get back at Davis. Benjamin Gordon, a multi-convicted felon now in prison, said that he was present when Sylvester Coles -- not Davis -- shot the officer. Another inmate, Anthony Hargrove, testified that Coles admitted the shooting. But Coles was not subpoenaed, so the judge indicated he may not give Hargrove’s statement, which is hearsay, any weight. Police also testified. Officers denied pressuring any of the witnesses and said that Sapp initiated his contact with police. 05/03/10 State hearing ordered by the Supreme Court scheduled for 6/23/10 08/17/09 Supreme Court orders hearing to determine “whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence.” Docket Stevens concurring opinion Scalia dissent Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 5/10/09 WHAT’S THE GUVERNATOR BEEN SMOKING? Legalizing marijuana shouldn’t just rest on economics
...Well, I think it’s not time for [legalizing pot] but I think it’s time for a debate. I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I’m always for an open debate on it... By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Governor Schwarzenegger isn’t alone. Fifty-six percent of California voters surveyed in the April 2009 Field Poll said they favored legalizing and taxing pot. Truth be told, the Golden State always had a soft spot for marijuana. Its Compassionate Use Act was the first, in 1996, to allow physicians to prescribe pot for treating a wide range of maladies including “cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief (emphasis added)”. Twelve more States from Hawaii to Rhode Island have since followed suit. It’s not just about medical use. Support for complete decriminalization has been on the rise throughout the U.S. Four decades ago the split was twelve percent for and eighty-four percent against. By late 2005 the gap had narrowed to thirty-four yes versus sixty no, with younger men mostly in favor and women and older men largely opposed. As might be expected, attitudes vary by region. There’s far more support for pot on the East and West coasts than in the more conservative South and Midwest. In 2008 the World Health Organization surveyed alcohol and drug use around the globe. Its findings were a bit surprising. The Netherlands only placed third. Despite their permissive drug laws, just twenty percent of the Dutch said they had ever used cannabis. Second place went to New Zealand, with a far higher 41.9 percent. Taking the crown was the good old U.S.A., where 42.4 percent admitted inhaling at least once. (Incidentally, we were also number one for ever using tobacco, 73.6 percent, and cocaine, 16.2 percent). Surveys by the National Institute of Drug Abuse confirm that marijuana is the most popular illicit drug in the U.S. Parents won’t like it but in 2008 nearly one-fourth of 10th-graders and one-third of 12th-graders admitted smoking pot at least once during the preceding twelve months. Marijuana’s proponents claim that it’s a harmless mood elevator, no worse than alcohol or tobacco. Many scientists disagree. Smoking pot is believed to pose a host of significant health risks, including cancer and diseases of the lungs and respiratory tract. Because they tend to inhale deeply and hold smoke for a prolonged period, pot smokers are likely worse off than those who only use tobacco. And it doesn’t stop there. There is good reason why popular culture pokes fun at potheads. Marijuana’s active ingredient, THC (tetra-hydro-cannabinol) affects key brain functions including memory and learning. Pot has been linked with poor performance at school and work, and even low dosages can seriously impair judgment and motor skills, making it dangerous to use machinery and drive a car. THC does have therapeutic qualities. It’s in anti-nausea medications used by chemotherapy patients. Marijuana, a powerful appetite stimulant, is of value for those suffering from AIDS and other wasting illnesses. Of course, it’s these benefits (and not pot’s recreational potential) that justified medical use laws in the first place. Yet, as well intentioned as the compassionate use statutes may be, their application leaves something to be desired. California’s permissive approach (physicians need only give verbal approval) lets unscrupulous clinics sell pot under the flakiest of pretenses. About the best that can be said of these profitable centers of stoner culture is that they don’t sell to children. Calling the situation “Looney Tunes,” LAPD Chief Bratton strongly criticized the lack of oversight: “They pass a law, then they have no regulations as to how to enforce the darn thing and, as a result, we have hundreds of these locations selling drugs to every Tom, Dick and Harry.” The good Chief hasn’t seen anything yet. Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has introduced California State Assembly bill 390, which legalizes pot for everyone 21 and over. Although the measure includes detailed provisions for licensing producers and retailers, growing marijuana and making reefers is ridiculously simple, so combating illicit manufacture, collecting taxes, preventing sales to minors and controlling purity and potency could easily drain away a good chunk of the $1.3 billion a year that the law would reportedly generate. (Naturally, it’s all contingent on the Feds allowing it. But that’s a story for another day.) There’s little doubt that letting buyers get weed from medical marijuana clinics instead of slimy street dealers has expanded sales. Whatever the gain, it’s nothing compared to the staggering forty percent increase in consumption that State tax authorities estimate Assemblyman Ammiano’s bill would yield. So is that what we really want? Given what’s known and suspected about pot’s effects on health, does it make sense to encourage young people to take on a habit that can cause cognitive disorders and life-threatening medical conditions? That’s to say nothing, of course, of having even more Toms, Dicks and Harrys driving around in a drug-induced haze. After all the jawboning about obesity, unhealthy food in the schools and the evils of alcohol and tobacco, it’s now proposed that we do an attitudinal U-turn and embrace a mind-altering drug, and all for the sake of a buck. Heck, it could make one want to light up! Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 07/10/10 States move to ban synthetic marijuana cigarettes favored by teens 07/08/10 RAND study: many unknowns, but if pot is legalized price will go down, consumption, up 07/05/10 LAPD starts raiding illegal marijuana clinics, making arrests and seizing pot and cash. 06/25/10 Presumed armed robbers hit two L.A. pot dispensaries, shoot one dead at each site. 06/08/10 Colorado tightens medical marijuana laws, requires physician exams, allows citywide bans 06/08/10 Hundreds of L.A. city marijuana clinics close as new law criminalizes unlicensed operations (see 5/4/10). Clinics must also be at least 1,000 feet from schools, churches and parks. 06/07/10 In California, medical marijuana delivery services circumvent regulation of dispensaries 05/21/10 Car crashes involving pot smokers and abusive “medical” providers bedevil Montana 05/04/10 L.A. orders 439 pot clinics that set up shop after a 2007 moratorium to close. 05/03/10 Federal judge upholds absolute bans on marijuana clinics in two California cities. 04/20/10 A poll reveals that 55 percent of Americans oppose legalizing marijuana. Poll numbers 03/25/10 An initiative to legalize pot will appear in California’s November election. 02/23/10 L.A. County prosecutors make good on threat, charge clinic operator with 24 felonies 11/23/09 San Francisco physicians are prescribing marijuana to treat ADHD youths as young as 14 11/17/09 L.A. D.A. agrees with City Atty. that pot sales illegal, vows to prosecute all pot clinics 11/01/09 Legal loopholes, lax enforcement turn Northern California town into a grow zone 10/19/09 New DOJ guidelines discourage prosecuting clinics that fully comply with State laws 10/08/09 L.A. prosecutors vow to go after dispensaries not run as nonprofit collectives 09/11/09 San Diego police make arrests, shut fourteen dispensaries called fronts for drug dealers 08/30/09 Marijuana is in the “mainstream” of American life 08/13/09 A co-writer of California’s medical marijuana initiative says it’s de-facto legalization 08/12/09 Locals, Feds raid two L.A. post dispensaries, seize drugs, cash 07/23/09 Emboldened medical marijuana businesses coming out of the shadows 07/08/09 Some broadcasters reject TV spots favoring marijuana legalization View ad 07/06/09 Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, former American and Canadian law officers 06/09/09 L.A. tightens moratorium on new pot clinics 06/07/09 Times opinion piece opposes legalization 06/03/09 L.A. authorities, residents flummoxed by an explosion of pot dispensaries LA Times 05/28/09 Half of arrested males test positive for illegal drug USA Today 05/28/09 $468 billion spent in 2005 on drug/alcohol abuse, mostly direct health costs and policing 05/18/09 Supreme Court refuses to consider challenge to California medical marijuana laws Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 4/5/09 Trying to draw lessons from a wave of senseless shootings
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Only yesterday Pittsburgh (Penn.) police officers responded to a 911 call of a domestic disturbance. Richard Poplawski, 22, was lying in wait, armed with a rifle and handgun and wearing an armor vest. As soon as police entered he opened up with a barrage of fire, killing three officers and wounding a fourth. During the ensuing standoff Poplawski, a gun enthusiast, called a friend and told him that his rights were being infringed on by “the Obama gun ban that's on the way.” Hostage negotiators eventually talked Poplawski into surrendering. That’s when his frightened grandmother (she’s the one who called police) came out of the basement. One day earlier, in the quiet enclave of Binghamton (NY), Jiverly Wong, 41, donned his own set of body armor, grabbed two pistols and a rucksack stuffed with ammunition and drove to an immigrant service center. Blocking the rear exit with his car, he barged in, guns blazing. Within moments fourteen lay dead, including himself. Acquaintances said that the middle-aged Vietnamese man, who was taking English lessons at the center, was angry about losing his job and despaired of his language skills. What causes such tragedies? What can be done to protect officers and citizens from armed madmen? Searching this website’s news archive for similar incidents we found eleven multiple-victim shootings since January 2008 that lacked a traditional criminal motive. We just mentioned two. Here are the rest:
Reducing these episodes to numbers, here’s what we learned: A total of sixty-six persons died of gunshot wounds, including five shooters who committed suicide and two who were shot by police. Fifty-nine innocents also lost their lives. Among them were seven police officers, eleven family members, five coworkers and 36 outsiders (persons unconnected with the shooter.) The number of dead per episode ranged from three (all police officers) to fourteen (thirteen outsiders plus the shooter.) Five incidents started out or were influenced by family disputes. Five shooters professed political or social agendas. There was a pronounced split in shooter age. Six were over 40, with four over 50. The other five were all in their twenties. The shooters led uniformly bleak lives. As far as is known, none was living with a spouse. Seven, perhaps eight were unmarried; three were divorced or estranged. Not counting the one who came back to kill after being fired, only two were gainfully employed. Four had documented mental problems; two had mental problems plus serious criminal records (each wound up killing a police officer.) Nine shooters were armed with handguns, four had rifles, three had shotguns, and three a combination. Three wore body armor. One, Jiverly Wong, whom a criminologist aptly described as a “pseudo-commando,” was responsible for the largest toll, killing thirteen. Another, McLendon, a gun enthusiast, was the second most prolific killer, killing ten and wounding six, including two officers. The third, Poplawski, also a gun enthusiast, murdered three officers. Can such tragedies be prevented? It’s unlikely. Families and friends described the shooters as angry men, displeased with their personal circumstances and mad at a system that they thought had failed them. That generalization is probably applicable to many fans of talk radio. Given just how much nuttiness there is, to say nothing of the ready availability of firearms, keeping lunatics from acting out their deranged fantasies seems hopeless. CBS News: America’s Mass Shooting Trend
Well, there is something that might prove useful. We left out the recent murder of four Oakland officers from the list because that shooter had what he considered a “rational” reason: he didn’t want to go back to prison. Cornered in an apartment after shooting two officers at a traffic stop, he fired again when police stormed in. Two more officers fell dead. SWAT said they didn’t wait because they couldn’t readily evacuate the building where the shooter took refuge. It’s a decision that will surely be under the microscope for a long, long time. After the Columbine high-school massacre police across the country resolved to move in quickly to keep citizens from being harmed. Academies now train patrol officers to form impromptu entry teams. Taking immediate action seems reasonable when facing expressive shooters like Wong, McLendon and Poplawski, whose commitment to redress real and imagined grievances poses a grave risk to anyone they might come across. But for criminals less concerned with making a statement the traditional “surround and call out” strategy may be more appropriate. It’s something to consider before the next time police face the unthinkable. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 08/09/09 Poplawski and other killers had CCW permits, including mass killer George Sodini. Study 04/12/09 A portrait of Jiverly Wong 04/06/09 Jiverly Wong allegedly mailed an explanatory letter to a TV station 04/06/09 Binghamton police criticized for waiting 45 minutes to enter shooting scene
Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 1/25/09 CARONA FIVE, FEDS ONE (BUT THE FEDS WON) Convicted of corruption, Orange County’s ex-Sheriff breathes a sigh of relief
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Getting convicted of a felony is hardly a reason to rejoice. But after being tried for one count of conspiracy, three counts of mail fraud by depriving the public of the honest services of a public official, and two counts of witness tampering, charges that could have landed him in prison for decades, it’s easy to see why his acquittal nine days ago of everything but a single count of witness tampering left ex-Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona feeling “beyond vindicated.” Carona was originally elected in 1998, then re-elected in 2002 and 2006. His travails date back to his first term, when he appointed two friends to top positions in the Sheriff’s Department. George Jaramillo, a lawyer and ex-Garden Grove cop (he left the department over a bitter personnel dispute) was installed as chief of operations, while Don Haidl, a wealthy businessman with no law enforcement background took charge of the reserves. Jaramillo and Haidl would stumble badly. In 2004 Jaramillo was charged in State court for misusing deputies, patrol cars and a helicopter to promote a vehicle immobilizing device for a private firm. Incensed at Carona’s lack of support (the Sheriff promptly fired him) Jaramillo eventually pled no contest to felony conflict of interest and served six months. That same year Haidl’s son was charged in a gang rape. Carona again proved of little help. The boy was convicted and imprisoned and an embittered Haidl resigned. The Feds seized on the opening. In March 2007 Haidl and Jaramillo were secretly indicted on tax charges, Haidl for not declaring business funds he spent on his son’s defense, and Jaramillo for failing to disclose cash and other gifts he got from Haidl. Seeking leniency, and perhaps revenge, they ratted on Carona, accusing him of selling his office by accepting cash and gifts from Haidl and doling out badges and gun permits to contributors. In October 2007 a Federal Grand Jury returned a multi-count indictment against Carona, his wife Deborah Carona and his mistress Debra Hoffman. Carona’s trial took place first. It was extensively reported by the Orange County Register so we won’t go into all the details. Here what we’re most interested in is why it fizzled out. The single conviction, for witness tampering, stemmed from a meeting between Carona and Haidl, who was wired up and working as an FBI stoolie. Although Carona knew that the Feds were sniffing around, he still felt close to his former confidant, and when Haidl displayed a fictitious Grand Jury subpoena and asked what to do Carona suggested being evasive. But try as he might, Haidl couldn’t get Carona to admit he accepted cash or did favors for money. As far as the Sheriff was concerned, whatever gifts he received, including the mechanically-challenged boat he got from Haidl were tokens of friendship. Unable to confirm that Carona acted corruptly -- the reason for the investigation in the first place -- Haidl got so frustrated that once they parted he muttered “it's like f***ing pulling teeth.” And yes, the hidden microphone was still on. Interviewed after the trial, the jury foreman said that most jurors disbelieved Haidl because of his cooperation agreement with the Feds. Aside from Haidl’s uncorroborated statements there was no evidence that Carona sold his office, hence citizens weren’t “cheated” of anything. Things might have gone differently had Jaramillo testified about the cash bribes, most of which supposedly passed through him. As it was, Jaramillo was never called to testify, an absence that one juror said cost the Government dearly: “It would have been different if Jaramillo was there, and that was the consensus of the group.” Not everything went smoothly in the jury room. Before the ink on the verdict form was dry two jurors were already complaining that they were browbeaten into voting for acquittals on the more serious counts. One said that it was only through his persistence that Carona was convicted at all. “I’m the one who did that one [charge]. I think it was a miracle. It was the only one that had an absolutely good, unadulterated tape where nobody could say something contrary.” But the transcript has no smoking gun. Carona never flat-out told Haidl to lie. What he did say, though, was so crudely put (among other things, he boasted about his affairs and sexual prowess) that Federal prosecutors probably charged him with obstruction just for the sake of bringing the tape into court. Carona is liable to a ten-year penalty. If the conviction holds -- there’s concern that it might not, as there was no proceeding to “obstruct” -- it’s likely that the judge will make him serve at least a token term behind bars. As a convicted felon, Carona will also lose many of his civil rights. He himself admits that his reputation is toast. Yet while there’s relief that a man with such a weak moral compass is no longer Sheriff, his trial ended with a whimper. Sure, Carona’s election, and re-elections, were probably tainted with campaign-law violations (due to the five-year statute of limitations, much of the evidence was inadmissible.) And like Sheriffs elsewhere -- Los Angeles County, for example -- he gave a bunch of wealthy, unqualified civilians badges and gun permits. But jurors didn’t equate these shenanigans with being a crooked cop. As one juror half-seriously suggested, “they should have given us a list of all the women he didn’t sleep with, it would have been shorter. But that doesn’t matter. Having an affair isn’t illegal.” If nothing else, Carona’s trial illustrated the foibles of American jurisprudence. Here are four lessons to carry away:
Since Carona resigned while in office the Board of Supervisors had to select someone to complete his term. After a nationwide search, detailed background checks and multiple interviews they chose Sandra Hutchens, formerly a division chief with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. While the outcome didn’t please CCW permit holders (she promptly revoked dozens of concealed-carry licenses that Carona issued) the process assured citizens that the County’s new top cop would be a well-regarded law enforcement professional. Of course, she will soon have to run for office, once again injecting a political spin into a process that, as events conclusively proved, should be completely removed from politics. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 04/11/10 Facing a tough reelection campaign, Sheriff Hutchens has discovered that the L.A. Sheriff’s best practices don’t fit the “values” of her new political home 09/15/09 Jaramillo gets 27 months in Federal prison; didn’t accept enough responsibility, judge says 04/27/09 Carona gets 5 1/2 years 03/25/09 Feds drop charges against Carona’s wife and his ex-mistress 01/28/09 L.A. Cardinal Mahony faces “honest services” investigation. 01/25/09 Supreme Court asked to decide whether the “honest services” law is unconstitutionally vague Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 11/30/08 HOW MANY LAWYERS DOES IT TAKE... The weight of the Feds falls on a misguided Missouri mom
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. How many lawyers does it take to convict someone of a misdemeanor? That’s what inquiring minds want to know. On November 26, after a five-day Federal court trial, a team of three prosecutors led by Thomas P. O’Brien, United States Attorney for the Central District of California convicted Lori Drew, 49 of three misdemeanor counts of accessing My Space computer servers without authorization. Why did the Feds unleash three top guns on a middle-aged Missouri mom? Rewind to October 2006 when Megan Meier, a troubled 13-year old girl hung herself after receiving a My Space message from someone that she met online. That was the horrific outcome of a plot concocted by Drew to take revenge on Megan for spreading malicious online rumors about Drew’s own 13-year old daughter. Drew enlisted Ashley Grills, 18, to help. Grills created a My Space profile for a fictitious 16-year old boy and started sending Megan flirtatious messages. When Megan got infatuated and pressed to meet the boy Grills broke it off with a “the world would be a better place without you” message. That unexpectedly drove Megan, who was on anti-depressants, to commit suicide. Unable to find a State or local law to fit the situation local authorities eventually declined to press charges, leaving the matter to be settled in the civil courts. That’s when the intrepid O’Brien came to the rescue, breathlessly announcing that he was stepping in to protect potential victims everywhere: “If you are going to attempt to annoy or go after a little girl and you’re going to use the Internet to do so, this office and others across the country will hold you responsible.” How could an L.A. prosecutor criminalize nasty doings in Missouri? It so happens that My Space computer servers are physically located in L.A. County, bringing Drew’s use of the service within O’Brien’s jurisdiction. For the precise offense he turned to Title 18, Section 1030, a confusingly worded and complex statute that penalizes “fraud and related activity” in cyberspace. Then things got curioser and curioser. Instead of letting his worker bees run with the ball, as is common practice in even the most serious crimes, the US Attorney personally injected himself into the case, going so far as to travel to Missouri to conduct interviews. Grills, who admitted she set up the My Space account and composed most messages got a sweet deal: immunity in exchange for testimony. Assured of a compliant witness, O’Brien had Drew indicted on conspiracy, a felony even if the object is a misdemeanor, and three instances of intentional, unauthorized access to a computer, charged as felonies under Sec. 1030(c)(2)(ii) because their alleged purpose was to commit a “tortious act,” meaning a harm under civil law. Excoriated in the national media, in the bulls-eye of one of the most intensive Federal investigations in recent memory, with her husband out of work and her daughter in hiding, Lori Drew finally came to trial. And that’s when the Government’s house of cards began to crumble. After attentively listening to all the Government’s men and all the Government’s witnesses, jurors hung on the most serious charge, conspiracy. And while they did convict Drew on three counts of unauthorized access (under Federal law aiders and abettors are liable as principals) they chose the misdemeanor rather than felony variant. There followed a groundswell of criticism, but not because the verdict was too lenient: “What happened to Megan Meier was a tragedy, not a crime...This verdict is a loss for civil liberties and leaves all Internet users at risk of prosecution under federal law. It is a prime example of overcriminalization.” (Andrew Grossman, legal analyst, Heritage Foundation) “This is troubling because it could have a chilling effect on free speech on the Internet. There is a long tradition of anonymous free speech in this country and the tech leaders on the Internet are trying to come up with some good way to balance anonymity with accountability.” (Sheldon Rampton, research director, Center for Media and Democracy) “What they [Drew and Grills] did was cruel and incredible. A grown woman harassing a kid, for heaven's sake? But there's always been a problem, in my view, of holding Drew legally responsible for an unintended consequence....” (Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star columnist.) “As a result of the prosecutor’s highly aggressive, if not unlawful, legal theory, it is now a crime to ‘obtain information’ from a Web site in violation of its terms of service. This cannot be what Congress meant when it enacted the law, but now you have it.” (Matthew L. Levine, former Federal prosecutor, now a defense lawyer.) As one might expect, Drew’s lawyer, H. Dean Steward, delivered his own tongue-lashing, going so far as to accuse US Attorney O’Brien of “grandstanding” to enhance his chances of being reappointed under the new Administration. Steward’s not done. Federal Judge George Wu will soon be ruling on his motion to quash the verdicts because what made the intrusion unauthorized -- Drew’s failure to heed My Space’s terms of service -- couldn’t have been “intentional” as the statute specifically requires since she didn’t set up the website and never read the guidelines. Legal technicalities aside, this case highlights a fundamental concern about the proper role of the criminal law. Would Lori Drew’s admittedly abominable acts have been better handled through the civil courts? People are always doing nasty things to each other, occasionally with catastrophic consequences, yet we rarely expect the Government to step in, preferring in a democracy to keep the State’s reach from becoming overbroad. When officials such as an all-powerful US Attorney manage through clever lawyering to invoke a statute clearly intended for a different purpose, we must be doubly cautious so that the fine line between the people’s interest and a zealous prosecutor’s self-interest isn’t breached. And there’s another problem. Miscarriages of justice are far more likely to occur when resources are, as in this case, terribly imbalanced. Few of us have the means to hold off a Federal steamroller, and ganging up on a person of such modest means as Lori Drew with three high-powered prosecutors and a pack of Federal agents smells much more like persecution than prosecution. Even if she “deserved it” you’ve got to wonder: who’s next? Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 7/2/09 Worried that Federal statutes were misapplied, a Federal judge announced his intention to set aside Lori Drew’s conviction 5/18/09 Lori Drew’s sentencing hits a snag 12/3/08 Los Angeles Times editorial Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 6/16/08 Crime has been falling. Does anyone know why? “...There will continue to be crimes of passion and anger. And it is important By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Continuing its love-fest with LAPD Chief “Hollywood” Bill Bratton, that’s how the L.A. Times explained away the murders of eleven persons over a single weekend, with nine shot dead, at least six in gang-related incidents. And remember last month’s six shootings in six hours? Recent events aside, homicide does seem to be on a downward trajectory. Preliminary FBI data indicates that in 2007 Los Angeles had 390 murders, a 19 percent reduction from 2006 when 480 were recorded. If this figure holds up there were 40 percent fewer murders in 2007 than in 2000, when killings reached a decade-high peak of 654 (statistics derived from UCR Table 8.) And wait, there’s more! Between 1999 and 2007, a period when L.A.’s population increased by more than two-hundred thousand, the number of violent crimes fell by 41 percent, from 46840 to 27801. Using the 2001 peak of 52243 as a base, that works out to a stunning reduction of 47 percent. Now if only we knew why. The following charts compare changes in homicide and violent crime rates per 100,000 population for the three largest California cities -- Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco -- with rates in New York City and the U.S. as a whole.
As America’s gang capital, L.A.’s been beset by criminality, but in the last decade its murder and violent crime rates have plunged, actually landing below San Francisco’s. What’s the reason? The Times knows: it’s that we’re doing a better job “managing” crime. Unfortunately their explanation stops there, but it’s safe to say that the miracle is largely attributed to Chief Bratton, and particularly his much-ballyhooed Compstat program, a computerized pin-map that uses current data to alert commanders to crime trends and hot spots. Bratton was appointed in October 2002, replacing Bernard Parks, a man who was viewed as so heavy-handed in administering discipline that many officers reportedly gave up interacting with thugs for fear of being punished. A cop’s cop, the new chief is far more popular among the rank and file. Could it be that a renewed sense of mission invigorated officers and got them working again? It’s an appealing thought. But while the fall in murder coincided with the change in leadership, the violent crime rate was already going down when Bratton came on the job. In truth, L.A. may simply have too few cops to proactively battle violence. As these pages have reported, compared to New York, the city is dramatically under-policed, with half the ratio of officers to population and, given the much higher population density in the Big Apple, a far smaller visible presence. Other than Compstat and better leadership, what else could account for L.A.’s “success”?
Do you have any ideas? Please pass them on! Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS The Great Debate The Great Debate II A Larger Force, But at What Cost? UPDATES 8/3/09 Crime and violence are dropping most everywhere, but with common explanations contradicted by data, no one seems to know why. 4/30/09 LAPD Chief Bratton’s interpretations challenged 2/9/09 Charlotte crime drop -- is it due to pressures to under-report? 1/22/09 Dallas crime drop tied to change in when police take reports 10/1/08 Complaints that police may be underreporting and undercounting crime in Baltimore Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 6/8/08 Wine is still alcohol. And alcohol kills. By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. When’s the last time that someone in authority encouraged you to drink? For us that happy occasion took place on June 4, 2008 at the Beckman Center of the National Academy of Sciences, when Dr. Francisco Ayala, Bren Professor of Biological Sciences at U.C. Irvine lectured on “Elixir of Life: Wine and Health.” Enlivened by Power Point slides of ancient Egyptian wine jars, pretty grapes and the occasional statistical U-curve, Dr. Ayala’s talk was, as the Center’s website promised, all about the benefits of the fruity beverage: “Wine grapes are one of the major human food crops, and there is now overwhelming evidence that drinking wine in moderation is beneficial to human health” (emphasis added.) Back home, we used online tools to check out the current literature. We found considerable but not “overwhelming” agreement that alcohol might benefit the cardiovascular system. Although Dr. Ayala contended that wine held a distinct advantage, a recent article concluded that once researchers controlled for the fattier diets of beer guzzlers the foamy brew offered as much of an advantage as wine. What Dr. Ayala didn’t mention is that the American Heart Association, the nation’s go-to source on cardiovascular issues, “does not recommend drinking wine or any other form of alcohol to gain [cardiovascular] benefits.” Unlike Dr. Ayala, who encouraged consuming as many as four or five glasses of (preferably red) wine a day, the AHA discourages nondrinkers from getting started and cautions those who do to limit their intake to no more than two servings. It also questions the science. Since there have been no “direct comparison trials” -- administering controlled doses of alcohol to a randomly selected group over time, then comparing their health to an equivalent group of nondrinkers -- the reported effects of booze could be due to lifestyle or other factors. Neither did Dr. Ayala reveal that drinking is frowned on by the American Medical Association. Why they’re such spoilsports is obvious. According to an article published in the authoritative AMA Journal, alcohol consumption was the third leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2000, following tobacco and poor diet/physical inactivity. But let’s not quibble. Probably the most notable thing about Dr. Ayala’s address was what he left out. Extolling the virtues of drink for a full hour, he said virtually nothing about its downsides, and absolutely nothing about the effects of drinking on others. For example, it’s well established that even small amounts of alcohol can impair judgment and motor skills, with deficiencies in cognition lingering even as BAC (blood alcohol concentration) decreases.
Alcohol also turns out to be a crucial factor in crime, especially assaultive offenses. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than one-third of convicted offenders under supervision in 1996 were drinking when they committed their crimes. Well, back to the lecture hall. After an hour’s hard work it was time for...you guessed it, a drink! Above and beyond the usual post-lecture fare of fruit, cheese and sweets the Academy was serving complimentary glasses of wine. Imagine a couple hundred seniors, many of whom can’t drive that well when sober, getting behind the wheel after a snort or two. Oh, did we mention it was in the evening? (Full disclosure: this writer’s pushing the big six-oh.) Dr. Ayala informed his audience that he and his wife own a vineyard in Northern California and supply grapes to major wine producers. Perhaps that might explain why he at times seemed much more the cheerleader than the dispassionate scientist. And as much as we appreciated the disclosure, revealing a conflict of interest doesn’t really resolve it. Perhaps in the future the good doctor might leave it to someone else to extoll the benefits of imbibing. And to the Academy: please -- no more free samples! Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 3/24/09 Study shows that heavy drinking can lead to gun violence Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 3/9/08 The presence of guns can instigate violence By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. On February 5, 2008 a 20-year old San Fernando Valley man with mental problems and a history of violence shot and killed his father and two brothers at the home they shared, called 911 to let the police know, then killed a SWAT officer and seriously wounded his partner when officers, thinking there were victims to rescue, rushed in. The assailant, who was armed with a shotgun and a handgun, was shot dead. Less than three weeks later, in a prosperous Orange County community about forty miles away, a 41-year old man shotgunned his family, killing his wife, their two girls, ages 8 and 9, their 5-year old boy, and finally himself. A sixth victim, a 14-year old son, was also wounded but is recovering. Police were alerted by neighbors who heard gunfire. The couple had separated in the past and were apparently having financial problems. Two days later, in a working class L.A. suburb about sixteen miles away, a 28-year old man with mental problems used a handgun to shoot and kill his mother. He then broke into the house next door, killed a woman and her child and wounded two other children, one critically. He was arrested by police while standing on the street with the gun in his hands. It’s not just California. Consider Tennessee. On February 27, in a rural town that prominently bills itself “a good place to live,” a romantically distraught 26-year old man armed with a .45 pistol visited his ex-girlfriend’s apartment under a pretext. He shot and killed the young woman’s mother, a current boyfriend and two other adults, then fled and committed suicide as police closed in. Eleven days later, officers responding to a call by a concerned relative discovered six persons -- two men, two women and two children under five -- shot dead in a Memphis home. Two other children and an infant were found in extremely critical condition. The shootings, which police said occurred hours earlier, were overheard by neighbors but ignored as gunfire was not uncommon. On March 8 police arrested one of the occupant’s brothers, who had just been released from prison afer serving a term for murder. Authorities said that the slayings were motivated by an argument. What’s to be done? Online gun retailer Eric Thompson, who sold ammo magazines to N.I.U. shooter Steven Kazmierczak and a pistol to Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho, has a ready solution: guns for everyone! But would the N.R.A.’s main prescription for domestic tranquility really help? Shootings in public places, such as on school grounds, usually take place quickly and with no forewarning. If a madman suddenly strikes, would armed citizens have the opportunity let alone the skill and presence of mind to engage the shooter effectively, and without placing innocents at risk? Preventing massacres in private residences seems well-nigh impossible. Must mom, dad, the kids, everyone down to the family dog pack a gun while watching T.V.? (“Honey,” she says, a thin smile crossing her lips, “please don’t change the channel!”) In December 1791, when the Second Amendment went into effect, a “handgun” wasn’t a .40 caliber Glock with a fifteen-round magazine. It was a bulky, muzzle-loading single-shot flintlock that could take nearly a minute to prepare for a second round. Such weapons, even those newly manufactured, aren’t considered to be firearms under Federal law (18 USC 921[a][3] and [16]). No matter the N.R.A.’s glib assertions, the combination of gun lethality and human fallibility make the idea of a ubiquitously armed citizenry intolerable. Exactly how many incidents of road rage with a gun -- or any rage with a gun -- are we willing to accept? Academic studies have demonstrated that exposure to violence can lead to aggressive behavior. Is it too far a stretch to suggest that guns might do the same? That they’re not merely instruments of violence, but can actually instigate it? Anyone who’s spent time on the streets knows that firearms create their own atmosphere. It’s another kind of climate change we’d be smart to avoid. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 7/16/08 Family member confesses to Memphis massacre Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 2/24/08 Declines in manufacturing are associated with crime By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. “The drug economy is the economy.” So said New Jersey prosecutor Joshua Ottenberg as he bemoaned the sad state of affairs in Camden, where stretches of its once-thriving downtown resemble the hollowed, bombed-out cities of World War II. Bucking a national trend of decreasing violence, with America’s three leading metropolitan areas, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles enjoying record-low homicide rates, the city of less than 80,000 suffered forty-five murders in 2007, thirteen more than in the previous year. (If anyone’s counting, that’s a forty-one percent increase.) The surge came despite a declining population. Census figures reveal that between 1990-2006, Camden lost nearly nine percent of its residents, while a stunning thirty-six percent -- more than one-third -- lived below the poverty level. It’s a similar story in Baltimore, where murders soared from 133 in 2006 to 155 in 2007, a gain of seventeen percent. Ohio’s capital has also lost residents in less dramatic ways. Between 1990-2006 it endured a 14 percent population decline. Nearly twenty percent of its citizens live under the poverty level. What about Philadelphia? Glad you asked. In the city made famous by cream cheese, murders rose from 185 to 203, a gain of “only” ten percent. Between 1990-2006 its population dropped nearly nine percent, with a full twenty-five percent living below poverty level. There seem to be as many explanations for the causes of crime as there are those studying it. Much of the attention has been focused on poverty and its correlates, including broken families, lousy public education, weak social and familial controls, deviant subcultures and the ready availability of guns and drugs. While most poor people are law-abiding, if poverty is a critical antecedent of crime and violence it seems reasonable to look for ways to increase income. But it’s awfully hard to do it when the only jobs available are at McDonald’s. Good-paying manufacturing jobs, the one-time universal entrée to the middle class, have been disappearing at a rapid clip: more than 18 percent were lost between 2001-2007, a span of only six years.
Total number of U.S. manufacturing employees -- all company sizes America’s industrial belt took the biggest hit. Nine of the twelve States suffering a decline in manufacturing positions between 1992 and 1997 were in the Northeast. Among these were New Jersey (9.7 percent lost), Maryland (3.4 percent lost) and Pennsylvania (.8 percent lost). Note that statewide figures may significantly understate losses in hard-hit urban areas. During the four decades ending in 1990 Baltimore lost a whopping sixty-six percent of manufacturing jobs; Philadelphia, seventy percent, drops that according to Fannie Mae clearly “contributed to the cycle of decline in inner-city neighborhoods.” Recent figures reveal that the crisis continues. As recently as 2007 manufacturing employment in the Northeast had the highest average monthly drop (.3 percent) and yearly drop (2.0 percent) of U.S. regions. Can a shortage of decent-paying jobs be blamed for inner-city violence? When reporters asked Camden’s police chief what could be done to curb his city’s abysmal homicide rate he answered, “it would be great to get a manufacturing plant.” He might be on to something. A recent study concluded that the industrial shift that stripped manufacturing jobs from America’s inner cities significantly increased the homicide rate of black males (“Industrial Shift, Polarized Labor Markets and Urban Violence,” Criminology, August 2004). How do we defeat poverty? The fix isn’t in more McJobs. Neither is it to improve academically-oriented education, as worthy as that goal may be for other reasons. We desperately need to create good-paying work for the majority of the male population that isn’t -- and never will be -- interested in math, science and social studies, no matter how many Jaime Escalantes we throw at them. One step might be to immerse secondary-school students who eschew academics in intensive vocational programs. Another might be to create incentives for keeping manufacturing at home -- or disincentives for sending it overseas. A country that helped rebuild Europe after the war has no excuse for not instituting a Marshall Plan to pull its own beleaguered cities from what threatens to become an irreversible decline. If we don’t stop bleeding jobs, our young men will keep bleeding buckets. Count on it. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS The New Normal A Very Dubious Achievement Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 2/4/08 When it comes to justice, there’s no substitute for money By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. “Jury acquits Wesley Snipes of tax fraud.” That was the headline splashed across U.S. dailies after a Federal jury acquitted the action-movie star of felony tax evasion, instead finding him guilty on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file tax returns. Since 1997 the star of “White Men Can’t Jump” has avoided paying millions of dollars in taxes by claiming that the IRS was not a legitimate government agency and lacked the authority to tax domestic earnings. An accountant and a well-known tax protestor who had been counseling Snipes and were tried alongside him were less lucky; both were convicted of felonies and face substantial prison terms. On the same date that Wesley dodged the big bullet a Boston appeals court affirmed the conviction of Richard Hatch for felony tax evasion. Best remembered as the relentless “Survivor” contestant whom everyone loved to hate, Hatch will have to serve out the four-year, three-month prison term imposed after jurors rejected his claim that the TV production company had agreed to pay the taxes on his million-dollar prize. There the comparison ends. Although they were charged with the same crime, Snipes’ alleged conduct was infinitely more serious, involving far greater losses of revenue and requiring much more investigation and court time. True, Hatch might have angered the judge by allegedly lying on the stand (Snipes didn’t testify), but he didn’t challenge the tax system with loony arguments. And when signing his return, he didn’t change “under penalties of perjury” to “under no penalties of perjury,” like Snipes did in 2001. Still, Hatch got hammered, while Snipes essentially walked. Why? Although in criminal trials the burden of proof is on the State, considering the imbalance between the resources available to the Government and those available to most defendants, raising reasonable doubt is no cinch even for the truly innocent. Hatch, who got involved in other mischief and squandered his winnings, was in no position to hire a big-bucks defense team with multiple lawyers, experts and investigators. Snipes was, and did. Tax fraud is one thing; murder, another. Consider the case of Darryl Hunt. Arrested in a 1984 rape/murder, the youth had little money to mount a challenge against lying witnesses and a faulty identification. Once he was convicted the tables turned, and it was now up to him to find the real killer or rot in prison. Although activists and lawyers worked tirelessly on Hunt’s behalf, it took nearly twenty years before DNA identified the right man, a parolee who had been jailed for attacking another woman not long before Hunt’s arrest. That information could have been discovered before trial had there been funds to hire investigators. Hunt didn’t have to do nineteen years for a crime he didn’t commit, but he did. Now consider some famous acquittals. Football legend O.J. Simpson, accused of slicing up his ex-wife and her friend outside her Westside apartment. Pop star Michael Jackson, tried for molesting a child at his Santa Barbara ranch. Actor Richard Blake, arrested for shooting his wife to death outside an Italian eatery. Consider also the case of music producer Phil Spector, whose 2007 trial for murdering a restaurant hostess ended in a hung jury. Other than fame, what do these defendants have in common? Money, and lots of it. Spending millions of dollars on teams of top-notch lawyers, experts and investigators, each managed to plant enough “reasonable doubt” in juror minds to overcome what many observers thought was overwhelming evidence of their guilt. What’s the moral to the story? If you’re not rich, think twice before going to trial. And if you do go to trial, are unjustly convicted, manage after five years to get a new trial, and the D.A. offers you time served for pleading guilty -- take the deal! Don’t stand on your high horse and go to trial again, just so you -- like Darryl Hunt -- can be wrongfully convicted twice! A system that works to the advantage of the wealthy and promises for everyone else only as much justice as they can afford is nothing to admire. How to restore its balance is one of our democracy’s most important to-do’s for the twenty-first century. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 1/28/08 Exposing impressionable youth to violent images for the sake of a buck By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Two-hundred thirty-six murders. That’s six months’ worth of killings in the not-so-angelic City of Los Angeles, three months’ worth in Los Angeles County, and, according to an academic who spends his time keeping track of such things, one and one-half hours’ worth in “Rambo.” Rated R for “strong graphic bloody violence, sexual assaults, grisly images and language”, Sylvester Stallone’s newest vanity project depicts the sixty-one year old actor/writer/director with the sagging pecs as a heroic Vietnam vet who sets out to rescue kidnapped missionaries. Sly’s newest project, reportedly the most violent general-distribution movie ever made, has received mixed reviews. Perhaps the most damning was the Philadelphia Inquirer’s, which called the film “action porn” and “an obscene gory game.” But in Hollywood, where any publicity is good publicity, the words were music to Lions Gate’s ears. They didn’t release the film to benefit society -- they did it for one reason, and one only: to make lots of money. Expecting to recover more than one-third the film’s $50 million production cost during its opening weekend, Steve Rothenberg, the studio's domestic distribution guru, proudly remarked that “Rambo” was targeted at the immensely profitable 17-to-24 year-old demographic: “Hopefully, what our advertising has done is introduce ‘Rambo’ to a whole new generation of younger males.” Naturally, it won’t be long before twelve-year olds will be watching “Rambo” DVD’s and shelling out their parents’ hard-earned bucks for the first-person shooter game that’s certain to follow. Just listen to those cash registers jingle! Sure, money’s dandy. Just don’t bother Sylvester, Steve and the other peddlers of pornographic violence with what some members of their target audience are doing with real guns and real bullets only blocks from Burbank’s soundstages. In 2006 seventeen-to-twenty four year olds were responsible for forty-three percent of murders in the U.S.; those in the most prolific segment, twenty to twenty-four, committed more than one in every four. With violence in many areas on the upswing, one can’t blame cities like Philadelphia from being dismayed by a plague of Hollywood shoot-‘em-ups that appeal to impressionable youth, and for all the wrong reasons. Ah, but wait a minute, you say. Anyone who’s taken freshman research methods knows that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. There was violence before television, movies and video games; ergo, TV, movies and video games cannot be the cause. If it were only that simple. Images are persuasive; if not, there would be no ad industry, no TV, and those pesky multi-color inserts in Sunday papers would be history (hmm...now there’s an idea!) Thanks to technology and the entertainment industry’s damn-the-consequences pursuit of the buck, grotesque visions of murder and mayhem have taken over the small and big screens and immersed video gamers in hypercharged environments where brutally dispatching one’s opponents isn’t one thing, it’s the only thing. Even well-regarded cinema critics have been inhaling. Consider the remarks of the L.A. Times’ Patrick Goldstein, who gushed that the “two leading best picture contenders -- "No Country [for Old Men]" and "There Will Be Blood" -- are brutal, nihilistic pictures that will be studied by film students for years but aren't the kind of pictures you can recommend to your Aunt Gladys in Des Moines.” But there’s a big difference between watching and doing, you say. Does exposure to violent images really lead to violence? A recently published paper (L. Rowell Huesmann, “The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research,” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 41, 2007) says yes, definitely. Analyzing studies dating back to the sixties, the author concluded that TV, video games and the Internet have become classrooms of violence, arousing, “priming” and desensitizing young, malleable minds, and creating a public health threat second in magnitude only to smoking and lung cancer. There was a day when the entertainment industry helped elevate society, rather than coarsen it. When the First Amendment presented an opportunity, not a shield behind which to hide. And when the measure of a man or woman was not what they earned, but what they contributed. Sylvester, Steve, Patrick...it’s not too late. Repent! Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 3/13/09 Violent video games linked to German youth’s lethal rampage Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 1/22/08 SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO THROW AWAY THE KEY Violence by the young is still violence “...it is perverse to condemn a minor to prison for life [without the possibility of parole] for committing a crime that he or she might find unthinkable on reaching adulthood.” By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. So said the Los Angeles Times in an editorial calling on the California Legislature to exempt 16 and 17-year olds from being sentenced to mandatory life without parole should they be convicted of murder with special circumstances (e.g., killing witnesses and law enforcement officers, murders for financial gain or during the commission of a violent felony, using an explosive, being especially cruel, lying in wait, in furtherance of gang activity, etc.) There are two threads to the Times’ argument. First, the comparative. Sentencing kids to life without parole isn’t done in any other country, so it’s by definition outrageous. Secondly, the empirical. According to science the brain region that controls impulsive behavior isn’t fully developed until one’s early twenties, so throwing away the keys needlessly “discards” correctible lives. And it’s not just the Times. Two days later the Miami Herald reported on Florida’s practice of remanding kids who kill to adult court, where they face possible life sentences. Among those currently at risk are a 12-year old who beat his infant cousin to death with a baseball bat, and a 14-year old who stabbed his best friend. According to a criminologist, prosecutors are catering to a public that demands they “deep-six” children who kill: “...no matter how much they can be rehabilitated -- people want 10 or 15 years out of the kid's life, maybe more.” Why is that? Perhaps the answer lies in what the Herald’s article didn’t say. In 1999 Lionel Tate, a 12-year old Florida boy, viciously stomped a 6-year old girl to death. After his police officer mother refused a plea bargain Lionel was convicted of murder and received life without parole. Although the judge described the killing as incredibly brutal, the sentence drew widespread condemnation and Lionel was eventually placed on probation. Well, he apparently didn’t learn his lesson. Lionel’s problems with the law continued, and in 2006 the now nineteen-year old got ten years for the armed robbery of a pizza deliveryman. What’s the difference between armed robbery and murder? Five pounds of trigger pull, maybe less with a semi-auto. Most Americans favor putting murderers to death -- nearly seven out of ten according to the latest Gallup poll. Half, though, would settle for life “absolutely without” parole, a wording made necessary due to skepticism that “without” really means that. In any event, prison is now the only option for younger offenders, as in 2005 the Supreme Court (Roper v. Simmons, no. 03-633), barred the execution of those under 18. Interestingly, the Court’s reasons -- that evolving standards make executing young people a cruel and unusual practice, and particularly so given their immaturity -- were the same as the Times’ more recent objections for imposing life sentences. Watch your step! The slope’s getting slick! This writer is personally against the death penalty. So he is naturally concerned when well-intentioned folks like the Times’ editors threaten the only alternative that the American public seems willing to accept: life without parole. Europeans may feel differently, but given the easy availability of guns and our absurdly high levels of violence it is perfectly reasonable to demand the certainty and reassurance that only permanent incapacitation can provide. There really is no other satisfactory solution. Consider the dilemma faced by Presidential contender Mike Huckabee, who finagled the 1999 parole of a violent rapist only to have the man rape and murder at least one and possibly two women a few months later. But young people are by definition immature. Should they really get no “second chance”? On January 17 two youths, one 17, the other 19, were arrested in the shooting deaths of a 16-year old Southland resident and her 18-year old boyfriend. Police think that the killings were done strictly for thrill as there was no evidence of a robbery and one suspect had blogged about the joys of “killing at random”. Although the Times’ proposed guidelines would not help these two, as both are just over the magical threshold of 18, one can assume that neither boy’s conscience was completely formed. If they’re not to be executed, when should they be released? Murder is not a phenomenon of the very young. In 2006 more than three in four persons arrested for murder were over 22, with about half older than 24. Apparently fully developed brains are not enough to keep people from killing each other. Fortunately, the rates decline markedly by the time that men (that’s the gender to worry about) are in their forties, so fifty seems like a good bet for release. OK, we’re on board. Release all violent offenders when they’re fifty, and send me the clippings of those who kill again. That should make for some interesting posts. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 04/02/10 Then only eleven, Jordan Brown used a shotgun to kill his father’s pregnant fiancee while she slept. He then went to school. Now that a judge has ordered he be tried as an adult, the twelve-year old would if convicted be the youngest person ever to get life without parole. 08/24/09 A Heritage Foundation report argues that some juveniles are worthy of being sentenced to life without parole and that efforts to eliminate that option are seriously misguided Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 12/24/07 LOCK ‘EM UP (AND SEND THE BILL TO VENEZUELA) How mandatory sentencing victimizes the public By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Governor Schwarzenegger’s in a fix. A $14.5 billion fix. Thanks to weak tax collections caused by a soft economy and crashing home values, that’s how much the California budget is in the hole. State agencies have already been told to figure on a ten-percent hit. Start digging! Trouble is, some departments spend money like drunken sailors. While most “normal” States expend two or three times more on colleges than prisons, California’s $10 billion corrections budget is just shy of the $12 billion that higher education gets, and if trends hold will surpass it in a few years. The Golden State runs the nation’s largest prison system, housing more than 170,000 inmates. It also imprisons a large share of its population, with a rate of 47.5 per 10,000 in contrast with New York’s far more moderate 32.6. And while New York’s prison population decreased 2.2 percent between 2000-2006, California’s increased by .9 percent (but a much larger 2.8 percent between 2005 and 2006). Locking up people is expensive -- very expensive. A recently approved $7.4 billion prison bond issue will eventually cost California taxpayers more than $300 million per year in interest alone. California is also under expensive Federal mandates to improve prison health and mental care. For example, this June the court-appointed receiver who controls the prison system’s $1.5 billion medical budget issued a blistering critique warning that it could take as many as ten years to bring things up to snuff. As a side note he also remarked that he would be spending an extra $158 million this year for staff and capital improvements. And there’s more.
Five-hundred million? That’s big bucks even for the Guv. In a recent proposal, Governor Schwarzenegger suggested releasing non-violent inmates with less than 20 months left on their terms, then not actively supervising them. Many others already on parole would also be shifted to non-supervised status, subject to search but not revocation for technical reasons. By slicing 22,000 from the inmate population (13 percent) and reducing 1,700 corrections positions, taxpayers could save a whopping $350 million per year. But wait a minute. How does freeing criminals make us safer? Won’t these so-called “savings” be offset by increased victimization? Again, contrast New York and California. Although New York imprisons a substantially smaller proportion of its population, its 2006 violent crime rate of 434.9 per 100,000 was nearly twenty percent lower than California’s 532.5. New York’s rate also dropped 2.1% from 2005 (444.4), while California’s increased 1.2% (526.0). Well, maybe California’s criminals are more violent and intractable than New York’s. We’ve already noted that L.A. is more thinly policed than New York City -- perhaps bad guys here have more opportunities! But in 2000 nearly six out of every ten new California inmates weren’t crazed gunmen -- they were technical parole violators. Our prisons are bursting at the seams because thousands of parolees are constantly cycling through, doing a few months here and there for lapses such as flunking drug tests and not cooperating with agents. Draconian laws, misguided practices and an unholy alliance between the guard’s union and legislators (and at least one former Governor) have transformed California’s penal system into an ever-expanding perpetual motion machine. That’s undeniably good news for the corrections industry, but is it a sustainable policy for the State? Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 11/30/07 Sex offender hysteria drains resources “These costs are likely to be in the several tens of millions of dollars annually within a few years [and] would grow to about $100 million annually after ten years, with costs continuing to increase significantly in subsequent years.” By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. That paragraph was lifted from the official voter information guide for Proposition 83, also known as Jessica’s Law, overwhelmingly approved by California voters in 1996. It addresses the fiscal impact of just one of the law’s provisions, requiring that certain sex offenders wear GPS tracking devices not just while on parole but for the rest of their natural lives. Proposition 83 also expanded the definition of sex crimes, increased punishment and limited where sex offenders can live. These requirements were expected to raise state prison costs “tens of millions of dollars annually once fully implemented,” referral and commitment costs “low tens of millions of dollars annually” and state hospital costs “$100 million annually within a decade.” Where is the money coming from? How do we pay to track as many as 3,000 or more new offenders per year, ad infinitum? Ah...the law was silent on funding. It was also silent about its, um, practicality. Just think, within ten years we’ll be tracking thirty-thousand offenders; within twenty, sixty-thousand. Here’s what Richard Word, the president of the California Police Chief’s association recently told the Los Angeles Times: "I don't know of any agency that has the resources to track and monitor [so many people] in real time...You'll need an air traffic controller to track these folks." California parole agents currently monitor 1,000 high-risk sex offenders with GPS. To increase that thirty-fold would require spending untold millions on brigades of agents and untold millions more on support staff, offices and equipment. Facing a $10 billion budget deficit, the state suggested that local governments bear the costs of tracking ex-cons not on parole. Jerry Powers, chief probation officer for Stanislaus County, told the Times that will never happen: “Powers told his colleagues that it would be ‘ludicrous’ to think that local agencies would voluntarily monitor all sex offenders by satellite. ‘It would bankrupt any of our systems very quickly,’ he said.” Jessica’s Law was an initiative, meaning that a special-interest coalition bypassed the Legislature and asked citizens to vote it in. Seventy percent said “yes.” Why? Because the Governor, the police, the sheriffs, the prosecutors -- everyone said it was a great thing. Here’s a snippet from the state police chiefs’ arguments, as printed in the official ballot information guide: “Don’t be fooled by the false arguments the group of lawyers against Proposition 83 is making. They represent criminal defense attorneys who make their living defending criminals. Of course they don’t want tougher laws!...EVERY major POLICE, SHERIFF, and DISTRICT ATTORNEY organization in California strongly supports Jessica’s Law...Your YES vote on Proposition 83—Jessica’s Law—will give law enforcement the tools they need to stop sexual predators before they strike again.” What do the law’s boosters say now? A representative of the state police chiefs, Woodland PD Chief Carey Sullivan, admits that “we would have been far better off with lifetime parole or probation than...with lifetime GPS.” Too late! Jessica’s Law is on the books. Go enforce it! Legal crusades inevitably distort the system. Are we O.K. that parole agents can’t watch gang members because they’re too busy chasing perverts? In a zero-sum economy like California’s ramping up the fight in one area requires that we pull resources from another. How can we even choose if police executives -- those who should know better -- are too cowardly to sound the alarms before it’s too late? And it’s not only about money. Another aspect of Jessica’s Law prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within a third of a mile of a school or park. That has kept many ex-cons from moving into supportive environments with family or friends. Instead they’re in a shell game, with parole agents hustling them from one temporary lodging to the next. Some wind up camping in cars or public land, making their monitoring all the more difficult. How this enhances their prospects for rehabilitation -- and our prospects for living in a safe society -- is hard to say. The sheriffs, police chiefs and politicians who jumped on the Jessica’s Law bandwagon can brag all they want about being on the side of angels. At least we now know the truth. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 04/14/10 Reacting to the rape/murder of 17-year old Chelsea King, allegedly by a convicted child molester, a California assemblyman introduced “Chelsea’s Law,” which would mandate life without parole in certain aggravated cases, and in others require lifetime GPS tracking after release. 04/05/10 To keep costs down psychologists now evaluate inmates for post-release commitment by reviewing their records rather than through face-to-face interviews. That’s cut costs and reduced the number committed, but critics say it violates Jessica’s Law. 08/11/08 Psychologists grow rich performing Jessica’s Law evaluations of “sexually violent predators” Home Top Permalink Print Share this post THEY DID THEIR JOBS Jurors freed Michael Jackson for a reason By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. When is a jury always wrong? When they find a celebrity innocent. After attentively sitting through four months of sordid, contradictory and often mind-numbing testimony, twelve citizens upended the wishes of innumerable pundits, media personalities and columnists, who made it clear throughout the whole ordeal that nothing short of a conviction would do. Now that Michael Jackson has been set free the conundrum continues, most recently with a suggestion in the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times that jurors should have avoided applying their “personal feelings” and concentrated on the “facts”. But how is it possible to decide between competing versions of events without injecting “feelings”? That is why standard California juror instructions expressly direct panelists to use their common sense:
Jurors must hesitate to accept even the most plausible circumstances as fact. In October 2001 Efren Cruz, 27, was freed after serving four years for a murder he did not commit. Three years earlier, in a secretly recorded conversation, a gang member admitted he was the triggerman and absolved Cruz. But Santa Barbara County D.A. Tom Sneddon – the same prosecutor who hammered Jackson – tried to block judicial review of the conviction. Earlier this year Santa Barbara County settled a multi-million dollar lawsuit alleging that Sneddon and police violated Cruz’s civil rights. Sex crime cases are particularly tricky to prosecute. Reports of sexual assault are often so delayed that no evidence is left other than testimony. And testimony can prove unreliable: “He grabbed my hair and then he started pulling me. And that's when I screamed. I tried to go away, and then my friends were trying to help me, and that's when he started choking me.” In January 2004, as Garden Grove transient Eric Nordmark sat on trial for molesting three girls, he was convinced that his accuser had been assaulted by someone. But he was wrong. In jail since May 2003, Nordmark was freed after the girls admitted they concocted the tale to avoid being punished for coming home late. Perhaps the best known example of the fallibility of child witnesses is the 1984 McMartin scandal, where false memories of sex abuse were implanted into scores of children who attended a Huntington Beach day-care. The case soon fell apart. Of the seven employees indicted, only two were tried and both were acquitted. (Stanley Katz, the psychologist who examined Jackson’s alleged victim, was an executive of the firm that helped conduct the McMartin interviews.) Another instance from the same era had a particularly tragic outcome. In May 2004 a Kern County judge declared John Stoll innocent after he served eighteen years for allegedly leading a cabal of child molesters. The last of forty-six defendants in a string of put-up cases, Stoll’s luck turned during two tearful, in-court recantations, including one by a 26-year old man whose false statements as a youth sent his mother to prison for six years. Pedophiles may be particularly vulnerable to false accusations. In 1986 Nassau County, N.Y. police charged Arnold Friedman, an admitted past abuser, and his son Jesse for molesting children during group computer classes. Facing highly graphic tales of forced sex, both eventually confessed. Arnold Friedman committed suicide in prison, while his son served thirteen years. Police conceded that no one had complained until they went calling. One parent, whose child insisted that nothing happened, reported that detectives pressured his son to say otherwise. We should all celebrate the outcome of the Jackson case, not for the sake of the accused, who will be ultimately judged by a higher order, but as an affirmation of a process that, however imperfect, has no suitable replacement. As in so many other things, those who now scream the loudest would probably be the first to demand the same right afforded to Jackson – a jury of twelve decent, thoughtful persons who would not hesitate to apply their “feelings” in court. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Published in the Los Angeles Times op-ed section, December 8, 2005 TOOKIE’S FATE IS THE WRONG DEBATE Capital punishment isn’t just wrong: it’s un-American Jay Wachtel Whether Stanley Tookie Williams lives or dies is not my concern. He chose the gangster life and now stands a good chance of reaping its rewards. Actually, the criminal justice system probably prolonged his existence. Had he not been in prison, Williams would likely be dead, a victim of the power struggles that have consumed many of his gangbanging peers. Killing him, though, is something else again. If the co-founder of the Crips had met his end on the street, few would have blinked twice. But now that the government proposes to do the deed, the liberal crowd has worked itself into a frenzy. And that's not a bad thing. Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of punishment. Letting evildoers run amok terrorizes the law-abiding. But now that life without parole is a universal fact, the shooting, electrocution or poisoning of criminals subject to permanent custody has become an exceedingly burdensome artifact. One must be cold-blooded to be unaffected by the idea of capital punishment. No matter how tidy we try to make the act of killing, dropping the hammer on someone strapped to a gurney is an inherently troubling business. Executions also run counter to the principle that those in government custody should come to no further harm. We judiciously keep condemned prisoners alive for as long as it takes, create massive paper trails and spend countless sums fighting appeals so that at some point we might win the game and kill them. Along the way, a few savvy inmates manage to achieve a degree of notoriety and public support, causing survivors even more grief. Speeding up the process is hardly a solution. Advances in DNA technology confirm that innocent people have been convicted, with some condemned to die. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 122 death row inmates have been freed since 1973. In an imperfect system, in which the accused are often too poor to mount an effective defense, it seems inevitable that innocent people will occasionally be executed. Among those who have apparently suffered this miserable fate was Texas inmate Ruben Cantu, who a recent investigation by the Houston Chronicle strongly indicates was wrongfully put to death in August 1993. Once we add the risk of occasionally killing the wrong person to the costs of running death rows, funding endless appeals and putting up with flak from liberals, there better be a good reason to continue what many consider a barbaric practice. Perhaps the best argument is that only capital punishment can bring the closure that victims and survivors of horrific crimes deserve. Maybe so, but 12 states, the District of Columbia and most of the civilized world have willingly given it up. With few exceptions, capital punishment seems to be a characteristic of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, among them such happy places as Cuba, Belarus and Libya. European democracies have outlawed executions, as has most of South America (a few countries make exceptions for war crimes). Even Russia, which during the Soviet era embraced shooting people in the back of the head as the ultimate measure of social control, stopped executions in 1999. I recently spent a week consulting with police in Ukraine. This is not a place that is soft on crime. Still, Ukraine abolished the death penalty in 1999. One month before Williams became an international celebrity, my hosts wanted to know why the world's leading democracy continued to put people to death. I told them that although a majority of Americans support the death penalty, an increasing number have come to believe that more killing is not the answer. Now that Williams' future is in the governor's hands, let him base his decision on what's best for California, not for a has-been gangster. And however long Williams lives, let him and his misguided cheering section shut up. JAY WACHTEL, a retired federal law enforcement officer, is a lecturer in the politics, administration and justice division at Cal State Fullerton. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! |
He then apparently took up armed robbery; a composite drawing bearing an uncanny resemblance makes him a prime suspect in a string of holdups between April 2008 and April 2009. But in May 2009 his luck ran out. Arrested on a variety of charges ranging from punching a Sheriff’s deputy to raping a 12-year old relative, he faced a third strike. Arkansas promptly issued a no-bail warrant. It seemed that the incorrigible offender’s get-out-of-jail-free card was finally revoked.
Keeping that limitation in mind, in 2008 Newark’s violent rate of 950.7 (an amalgam of homicide plus the other three) was sixty-four percent greater than New York City’s 580.3, while Camden’s 2332.6 was four times its size. Baltimore fell in the middle of the pack; at 1588.5 its rate was two and three-quarters larger than the Big Apple’s.
