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.