Juveniles joining gangs

By:  Caroline Jimenez, JS Senior

We see and hear more about our children are being forced into joining gangs, who are killed because of the color of cloths they wear or what part of Mexico they are originally from. Many juveniles who join the gangs are individuals with low self-esteem, loners, individuals who submitted to the pressure of their peers and come from poor and dysfunctional families. To these young and impressionable juveniles, the gang life replaces their family and social ties to the community.

Today’s generation of juvenile gang members have become more violent than the previous generations. They have become territorial and engage in a series of criminal offenses ranging from felonies, misdemeanors and infractions. In addition, juvenile gang members have become more aggressive in criminal activity against the community, with many committing crimes on behalf their adult gang members. Although there have been some individuals who have been able to get out of the gang life, they face a difficult time trying to fit back into their community and are often threaten by their own gang members for leaving the gang. Many end up rejoining their gang family. Yet, there have been a few exceptional individuals who have managed to become model citizens and begin a new life away from the gang life and violence.

In order to combat gang violence, the attitudes of society need to change. Politicians, law makers and the criminal justice system need to revise current laws in order to make this happen. Our government needs to focus on building facilities for after school programs that cater to teenagers in middle school and high school that would keep them off the streets and focus on their education and career goals. For those after school programs that close earlier, they should close at a later time in the evening. In addition, middle schools and high schools should consider having parent group sessions for those parents who have knowledge of and experience with their own teenagers joining gangs or have been victims of gang violence. By implementing these programs, neighbors, friends and family will be able to keep an eye out for each others family members and stop any gang influence and violence.

By: Mariya Rasheva, JS Senior

Throughout history, governments have seen the death penalty as a powerful method of deterring crime. However, after the aftermath of the Second World War, some states changed their perspectives on this punishment.  A large number of states, including the United States, agreed to follow the human rights standards set by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although the Declaration is not a legally binding document, it expresses the basic ideals that the world holds for human rights that are “inherent to all human beings,” regardless of “nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status” as well as are “interrelated, interdependent and indivisible” (United Nations HROHCHR, 2013). Furthermore, the Declaration defines the right to life as one of the most fundamental human rights (UNAC, n.d.). Except for the United States and Japan, all Western states have abolished the death penalty or do not exercise it (Amnesty International, 2012). Although the United States has faced international pressure in regards to its continuing use of the death penalty, thirty-three U.S. states still practice it (Death Penalty Information Center, (2012). However, the United States should abolish the death penalty as it not only violates universal human rights norms, but also is expensive and ineffective deterrent.

By not abolishing the death penalty, the United States exemplifies that its stance that it is a protector of human rights is mere rhetoric.  The United States was actively involved in drafting and securing adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (Sears, n.d.). Although its world leadership in wide-spreading universal human rights norms, it still practices it at home. Moreover, it disrespects core human rights norms. For instance, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (United Nations, n.d.).  Thus, it does not matter if someone is a murderer. By retaining the death penalty, the United States is both denying individuals the fundamental human right to life and demonstrating a lack of respect for human life. Even though, Article 5 of the Declaration states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” the death penalty entails torture (United Nations, n.d.). The prison conditions for death row inmates and the execution are arguably mentally and physically cruel. The average death row inmates wait for execution over twenty years (ACLU, n.d.), “alone in solitary confinement, spending 23 hours a day in their cells” (Carter, 2008). Most of them develop severe psychological illnesses while waiting for their execution.

Although society considers lethal injection as the most humane form of execution, there is no way to know that the injection is painless. In fact some “executions have lasted between 20 minutes to over an hour and prisoners have been seen gasping for air, grimacing and convulsing during executions (Amnesty International USA, n.d.). Prolonged execution attempts are “cruel and unusual punishments (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).  Though, the Supreme Court “has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment” (USLegal, n.d.). Therefore, the practice of death penalty within the United States represents a level of double standards regarding the United States’ international commitment to human rights and its practice. While at the international arena the United States is a leading proponent of human rights, domestically it continues to violate the most basic human right – the right to life. The death penalty should be abolished so that the United States is able to regain its world leadership as human rights defender as well as all Americans can have the right to life.

Moreover, the death penalty procedure is an expensive state policy. To ensure that innocent individuals are “not executed for crimes they did not commit,” the process of death penalty is complex, lengthy and time-consuming, and suspects life in prison with enhanced security for many decades (Death Penalty Focus, n.d.). Consequently, the death penalty is much more expensive than any other kind of criminal case. For instance, “housing prisoners on death row costs California tax payers an additional $90,000 per prisoner per year,” than life without parole (ACLU, n.d.).  In other words, “California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment” (Death Penalty Focus, n.d.). The resources could be invested into solving other murders and preventing violence by creating programs and agencies that enhance public safety. The death penalty should be abolished not because of sympathy for criminals but because it costs a lot more to taxpayers than life without parole.

Furthermore, the death penalty does not reduce crime. Studies show “that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal violence. Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states” (ACLU, n.d.). In addition, “[d]eterrence is a function not only of a punishment’s severity, but also of its certainty and frequency (ACLU, n.d.).  The death penalty “can be an effective deterrent only if it is consistently and promptly employed” (ACLU, n.d.). On the other side, if the death punishment procedure is accelerated, can one really be certain that all who have been sentenced guilty and executed were absolutely guilty? If later evidence proves that someone sentenced to death was wrongly convicted, the death penalty is irreversible. Thus, the death penalty should be abolished for its ineffectiveness in reducing crime and potential for wrongly convictions. Moreover, life without parole is a good alternative. Furthermore, “[e]xperts suggest that criminal behavior and the nation’s murder rate may best be curbed by addressing the environmental and social factors that contribute to violent crime” (Death Penalty Information Center, (n.d.). The death penalty can execute killers, but do not eliminate killing. The death penalty does not solve society’s crime problems.  Improving the socioeconomic health of society does.

There is not a humane way to deprive another person of his or her life. The death penalty “is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace” and thus has “no place in a civilized society” (ACLU, n.d.). By abolishing the death penalty, the United States can demonstrate that the state values human life. Moreover, as a leading world power, the United States is able to set a positive example to other states that still practice the death penalty regarding strengthening universal commitment to human rights values.

References:

ACLU of Northern California (n.d.). Execution Methods. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/execution-methods

ACLU of Northern California (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions About the Costs of California’s Death Penalty. Retrieved from https://www.aclunc.org/issues/criminal_justice/

death_penalty/frequently_asked_questions_about_the_costs_of_california%27s_death_penalty.shtml#Can%20we%20speed%20it%20up?

ACLU of Northern California (n.d.). The Case Against the Death Penalty. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty

ACLU of Northern California (n.d.). The Truth About Life Without Parole: Condemned to Die in Prison. Retrieved from https://www.aclunc.org/issues/criminal_justice/death_penalty/the_truth_about_life_without_parole_condemned_to_die_in_prison.shtml

Amnesty International (2012). Abolitionist and retentionist countries. Retrieved from http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries

Amnesty International USA (n.d.). Lethal Injection: Anything But Humane. Retrieved from http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/lethal-injection

Carter, Michael (2008).  Waiting to Die: The Cruel Phenomenon of “Death Row Syndrome.”         Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/story/106300/waiting_to_die%3A_the_cruel_phenomenon_of_%22death_row_syndrome%22

Cornell University Law School (n.d). Eighth Amendment. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment

Death Penalty Focus (n.d.). The High Cost of the Death Penalty. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

Death Penalty Information Center (n.d.). Experts Explain Why the Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2200

Death Penalty Information Center (2012). States With and Without the Death Penalty.

Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

Sears, John (n.d.). Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, Retrieved from http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/library/pdfs/sears.pdf

UNAC (n.d.). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.unac.org/rights/actguide/udhr.html

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2013). What are human rights? Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx

United Nations (n.d.). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

USLegal (n.d.). Death Penalty Law &Legal Definitions. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-penalty-law/

Death of “The Dude”:  Moot Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Treehorn v. California

The Ninth Circuit Moot Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the case of Treehorn v. California. Current JS205 (Law & Courts) graduate students representing either the Appellant Jackson Treehorn or the Appellee State of California will present their cases before a three-judge panel comprised of JS faculty members (the Honorable M. Stevenson, Chief Judge, the Honorable C. Hebert and the Honorable A. Pedneault presiding).

A jury convicted Appellant, Jackson Treehorn of first-degree premeditated murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. These convictions stemmed from Appellant’s killing of Jeffrey Lebowski. The court sentenced Treehorn to life imprisonment for his murder conviction and a consecutive two-year term of imprisonment for his felony-firearm conviction.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it permitted police officers to testify that Lebowski identified the Appellant as his killer. The record reflects that within minutes police officers responding to a call apprehended the Appellant fleeing the bowling alley and placed him under arrest for carrying a firearm. Police then entered the bowling alley where witnesses said they heard gunshots coming from the lounge. Immediately upon entering the lounge, police officers discovered “Gary” the bartender hiding behind the bar and Lebowski lying on the floor next to a barstool, bleeding profusely from gunshot wounds. Police asked Lebowski to identify the shooter. Lebowski at first hesitated, but after the officers advised Lebowski that he “might not make it”, they asked him to identify his assailant. Lebowski identified the Appellant by name, as the shooter. Within minutes, emergency medical personnel arrived and an additional police officer arrived who again advised Lebowski that he would not live much longer and asked him to identify his assailant. Once again, Lebowski identified the Appellant as the shooter, and according to both officers at the scene, stated, “Go get him fella’s”. Afterwards, Lebowski fell into a coma, which lasted several months until Lebowski died from his gunshot wounds.

The Appellant will argue Lebowski’s statements to police officers identifying the Appellant as the killer are hearsay and therefore inadmissible at trial. The Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), established that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution recognizes an accused’s right to be confronted with the witnesses against him and that “testimonial” hearsay is categorically inadmissible in a criminal trial. Thus, the Supreme Court requires that for hearsay to be admitted against a defendant in a criminal trial, the declarant (witness) must be unavailable and the statement must have been subjected to prior cross-examination.

Alternatively, the Appellee, State of California, will argue that in a recent case, Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U. S. ____ (2011), the Supreme Court further distinguished “testimonial” statements (hearsay) from “nontestimonial” ones (statements that are not hearsay and otherwise admissible in criminal trials) for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment. It created an objective test requiring courts to examine not only the intent or “primary purpose” of the declarant’s statement but also that of the entire encounter. Moreover, Appellee’s will maintain that the Crawford Court left open the question of whether the “testimonial-nontestimonial” distinction is applicable to statements that fall within the long-established dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. The exception permits statement made by an unavailable declarant under the belief of impending death. Thus, dying declarations, though hearsay, are admissible.

The oral arguments are set to begin on May 15, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in MacQuarrie Hall, Room 526. Visitors are welcome, but space is limited.

By: A’ree Hewitt, JS Student

Juvenile delinquency affects all of society. The victims of the crime may suffer a loss of wages due to time off work for injuries and may be stuck with replacing stolen or damaged property. The families of the juvenile may be stuck with the burden of raising funds to pay for lawyers or to compensate victims. The juvenile who committed the crime may fall behind in school and may be exposed to and influenced by more experienced juveniles increasing the possibilities of recidivism.

When youth are arrested for a crime they are sent to juvenile hall to wait for their court dates. After being tried and convicted of that crime in juvenile court some are sent to ranches, boot camps or other out-of-home placements, probation or to the Youth Authority as a ward of the state. The goal of juvenile justice is to rehabilitate youth to keep them from engaging in further delinquent activities, but why should we wait until youth are engaging in delinquent activity to reform make an attempt to reform them? Many youth who become criminal offenders at a young age continue to offend into adulthood. Instead we need to focus on early prevention and intervention for delinquency as the familiar saying goes “prevention is better than cure.”

Providing prevention and intervention services for youth who are at-risk for delinquency will be much more effective and beneficial for youth their families and their communities than focusing solely on the punishment and rehabilitation of these youth. One avenue would be to focus on and provide services to children identified in court as being abused and/or neglected by their parents, as they are more likely to become delinquent. Home visitation programs for parents at high risk for abusing/neglecting their children could be effective. Parenting skills, marital and family therapy should be provided. Job training programs as well as accessible employment need to be made available to people living in high unemployment areas. Free or low-cost early education and daycare programs should be available to families in need.

Also we need to pay attention to the children of people who are incarcerated; these children are at risk of engaging in criminal activities as well. The absence of a parent due to incarceration can be very detrimental to the development of the child as well as the structure and dynamics of the family and community. Providing the child’s basic necessities, instilling societal norms/values and supervising the actions and activities of a child become difficult for families missing a parent due to incarceration.

Usually the signs and risk factors of juvenile delinquency are evident prior to the youth’s first criminal offense. School failure, dysfunctional families, substance abuse, mental disorders and problem behaviors are all signs of juvenile delinquency. Often it is too late to wait until a child or teenager engages in a criminal act and gets caught to pay attention to problem behaviors. Policies need to be reformed and funds need to be allocated toward crime prevention efforts instead of the aftermath of crime.

By:  Simran Gil, JS Student

Here in the Bay Area, many police and sheriff departments are currently hiring. San Jose, Santa Clara and San Francisco are currently requiring candidates to go through the P.O.S.T physical and written assessments before applying. Fremont police department is the only department that does not require P.O.S.T credentials. Before an application can be submitted to these police departments, candidates must score a 50 on the written assessment and a 320 on the physical agility test. Once these prerequisites are met, the next step is the oral board. The oral board assessment is designed to assess communication skills. Getting a high score on the oral board is crucial because a high score here can set you apart from the rest of the applicants. The higher a candidate scores on the oral board, the more likely he or she will come closer to being hired.

After the oral board assessment, there is the background check. The background check is a long process and it can take up to three months. Candidates will be assigned a background investigator and this investigator’s sole purpose for that time being is to make sure that the candidates background does not conflict with the job. Lying to the background investigator can disqualify candidates on the spot. Since there is a high number of applicants, departments refrain from giving second chances. If the information conflicts with the background investigator’s findings, chances are that the candidate’s file will be ‘black listed’ which then will make securing a position with any police department next to impossible.

Once the background is done the next steps are the polygraph and the psychiatric examinations. The polygraph is the ‘lie detector’ test which is designed to measure and record several physiological indices such as blood pressure, pulse respiration, and skin conductivity, while being asked a serious of questions. The psychiatric test on the other hand measures if candidates are mentally fit to handle the stressors of the job. Most of these test are pass/fail, and there are no re dues. Once the polygraph and psychiatric examinations are cleared the last step consists of an interview from the Chief of Police. Overall, becoming a police officer in the Bay Area is an lengthy process, which usually takes up to nine months.

By:  Kyle Herbold

In the fast paced college lifestyle, there are often not many opportunities or chances for an entire department to come together and participate in the same event. Advancing along through your major you are likely to see some of the same people in your classes through the years, but you may only develop somewhat of an acquaintance with that person. What started out as a way for the justice studies department student groups to come together to get to know each other has developed into a fun department wide event.

The 3rd Annual Justice Studies Confidence Challenge creates an opportunity for the Justice Studies faculty, staff, and students to come together and complete a miniaturized POST agility test based on police academy standards. The challenge entails a series of seven events in which each team tries to achieve the fastest time to complete each event. The events include a six foot wall climb, an agility obstacle course consisting of tires, cones and the dreaded freeway divider, sit-ups and pushups, a caterpillar walk, a 160 pound dummy drag, a tug-of-war match, and finally, the relay race. Since most of these events are based on what takes place in the actual police agility test, any justice studies majors looking for some practice or a fun way to get in some exercise should definitely consider signing up for the confidence challenge next year.

Grouped together into teams of three to four students and/or a faculty member, the confidence challenge helps to create camaraderie between students and faculty that goes beyond the classroom. It is a nice change of pace to interact with fellow students and professors when big assignments and school work are put on the backburner, even if it is for only a few hours. As a participant for the last years, I can say that any justice studies majors should take the time out to compete at least once while they are here at SJSU.

Check out the pictures from the 2013 JS Confidence Challenge — A great event!

Huge thanks to Dina for taking these photos:  http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/JSSJSU/library/JS%20Confidence%20Challenge%202013