Police chief, chief judge participating in conference on criminal justice, technology - The Washington Post
"WASHINGTON — “Criminal Justice in the Digital Age” is the topic of a conference being held in Washington that will include the city’s chief of police and the chief judge of the superior court.
Thursday’s conference at the city’s convention center includes District of Columbia Police Chief Cathy Lanier as well as D.C. Superior Court Chief Judge Lee Satterfield. The conference includes discussions on social media, technology and children and the courtroom of the future."
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Law panel, not MPs, to rule on right to silence - NZ Government - NZ Herald News
Law panel, not MPs, to rule on right to silence - NZ Government - NZ Herald News
"The Government's stalled reforms of the justice sector have been given an unusual lifeline with a proposal to take the controversial issue of the right to silence out of Parliament's hands and leave it to a group of legal experts.
The Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill is likely to have its second reading this week, having spent a month on the order paper while Justice Minister Simon Power sought the numbers to pass it.
The bill is a shake-up of the criminal justice system and includes the removal of an accused's right to remain silent and not have that held against them.
As it stands, the bill would require the defence to disclose to the prosecution before a trial all issues in dispute. Failure to do so would enable a judge or jury to infer that the accused is more likely to be guilty. At present, a defendant can say nothing, leaving the case to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The Labour, Green and Maori parties are strongly against the bill in its present form, but the Herald understands Mr Power has won the support of United Future leader Peter Dunne and Act MPs Hilary Calvert, Heather Roy and Sir Roger Douglas by removing the disclosure regime from the bill (Act MPs are not "whipped" to vote as a caucus).
The ability of a judge or jury to infer a greater likelihood of guilt from non-compliance would also be removed.
A new clause would allow the Rules Committee, a panel of legal experts chaired by Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, to decide if a disclosure regime should be enforced, and if so, how.
The committee has responsibility for procedural rules in the court system, and relies on advice from judges, lawyers and other interested parties.
Dr Bill Hodge, an associate professor of law at Auckland University, said delegating control to the committee would be "unusual" because Parliament usually makes the law, while the judiciary applies it."
"The Government's stalled reforms of the justice sector have been given an unusual lifeline with a proposal to take the controversial issue of the right to silence out of Parliament's hands and leave it to a group of legal experts.
The Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill is likely to have its second reading this week, having spent a month on the order paper while Justice Minister Simon Power sought the numbers to pass it.
The bill is a shake-up of the criminal justice system and includes the removal of an accused's right to remain silent and not have that held against them.
As it stands, the bill would require the defence to disclose to the prosecution before a trial all issues in dispute. Failure to do so would enable a judge or jury to infer that the accused is more likely to be guilty. At present, a defendant can say nothing, leaving the case to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The Labour, Green and Maori parties are strongly against the bill in its present form, but the Herald understands Mr Power has won the support of United Future leader Peter Dunne and Act MPs Hilary Calvert, Heather Roy and Sir Roger Douglas by removing the disclosure regime from the bill (Act MPs are not "whipped" to vote as a caucus).
The ability of a judge or jury to infer a greater likelihood of guilt from non-compliance would also be removed.
A new clause would allow the Rules Committee, a panel of legal experts chaired by Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, to decide if a disclosure regime should be enforced, and if so, how.
The committee has responsibility for procedural rules in the court system, and relies on advice from judges, lawyers and other interested parties.
Dr Bill Hodge, an associate professor of law at Auckland University, said delegating control to the committee would be "unusual" because Parliament usually makes the law, while the judiciary applies it."
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Capitol Weekly: California violent crime at lowest since 1968
Capitol Weekly: California violent crime at lowest since 1968
"California’s crime rate dropped across the board in every major measured category, with violent crimes – including murders and rapes – at their lowest comparable levels in more than 40 years, the state Justice Department says.
The department’s report, “Crime in California,” tracked offenses, arrests, judicial dispositions of felonies, probation, complaints against peace officers, domestic violence calls and other data over time. The full study can be seen here.
Meanwhile, some 67.6 percent of those arrested for felonies wound up getting convicted -- the lowest level in a decade.
The dense report, a collection of tables and fine print detailing criminal behavior in California society, reflects the spikes and declines of crime over several decades.
A startling finding is that the most violent crimes, homicide and forcible rape, have dropped to their lowest levels per 100,000 of population since 1966. Murders during 2010 were at 4.7 per 100,000 people, and rapes were at 21.4.
Aggravated assaults accounted for 246.5 per 100,000, compared with 155 in 1966. But the latest level is down dramatically from the high of 632.5 in 1992.
The violent crime rate dipped 6.9 percent, down to 422.3 per 100,000 from 453.6 in 2009. The decline reflected its lowest level since 1968, when it was 411.1.
The property crime rate also declined by 2.7 percent from 2009. According to the Justice Department, the largest decline in property crimes was in motor vehicle theft, which dipped 7.6 percent. The auto theft rate has dropped 62 percent since 1989, the reported noted."
"California’s crime rate dropped across the board in every major measured category, with violent crimes – including murders and rapes – at their lowest comparable levels in more than 40 years, the state Justice Department says.
The department’s report, “Crime in California,” tracked offenses, arrests, judicial dispositions of felonies, probation, complaints against peace officers, domestic violence calls and other data over time. The full study can be seen here.
Meanwhile, some 67.6 percent of those arrested for felonies wound up getting convicted -- the lowest level in a decade.
The dense report, a collection of tables and fine print detailing criminal behavior in California society, reflects the spikes and declines of crime over several decades.
A startling finding is that the most violent crimes, homicide and forcible rape, have dropped to their lowest levels per 100,000 of population since 1966. Murders during 2010 were at 4.7 per 100,000 people, and rapes were at 21.4.
Aggravated assaults accounted for 246.5 per 100,000, compared with 155 in 1966. But the latest level is down dramatically from the high of 632.5 in 1992.
The violent crime rate dipped 6.9 percent, down to 422.3 per 100,000 from 453.6 in 2009. The decline reflected its lowest level since 1968, when it was 411.1.
The property crime rate also declined by 2.7 percent from 2009. According to the Justice Department, the largest decline in property crimes was in motor vehicle theft, which dipped 7.6 percent. The auto theft rate has dropped 62 percent since 1989, the reported noted."
Monday, September 12, 2011
JURIST - Dateline
JURIST - Dateline
"Christie Tomm, St. John's University School of Law Class of 2012, is the author of the second article in a ten part series from the staffers of the Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development under the direction of Professor Leonard Baynes. She writes on the need to maintain a single justice system in prosecuting alleged foreign terrorists.
After a decade of uncertainty, the Obama administration recently announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in a military tribunal, as opposed to federal court. Until the death of Osama Bin Laden, Mohammed was the person most directly involved in the 9/11 attacks apprehended by US authorities. As such, his prosecution would function as a symbol of much-awaited justice for those Americans whose lives were devastated by the horrific events of that day. However, in deciding to try Mohammed in a military tribunal, that justice will be muted and its significance undermined.
The US government set a dangerous precedent when it passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). In doing so, it gave another governing body, one that is not required to adhere to the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution, jurisdiction to determine the guilt or innocence of non-citizens suspected of terror-related crimes. For the Constitution to continue to serve as a fundamental governing principle nationally and internationally, its validity and dominance in the federal criminal justice system should never be questioned. To ensure this, when a person, citizen or non-citizen, is charged with any crime, from petty larceny to tax evasion or terrorism, there can be only one set of rules that govern what rights the defendant is entitled to.
The MCA is contrary to the principles established by the US during more than 200 years of common law. The MCA allows military tribunals to admit into evidence confessions that do not respect an individual's Miranda or Fifth Amendment rights, and the MCA does not require that a terror suspect be given a trial to determine his guilt once he is deemed an enemy combatant, essentially allowing for his indefinite detention. However, despite the fact that the federal criminal justice system does provide these fundamental rights, it is more than adequately able to handle the trials of suspected terrorists. The executive branch, through its specially trained district attorneys, FBI agents and terrorist task forces, is prepared to deal with the particular challenges that come with investigating and trying a suspect that is not a US citizen, likely to be uncooperative and to evoke controversy and intense emotion in the public forum."
"Christie Tomm, St. John's University School of Law Class of 2012, is the author of the second article in a ten part series from the staffers of the Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development under the direction of Professor Leonard Baynes. She writes on the need to maintain a single justice system in prosecuting alleged foreign terrorists.
After a decade of uncertainty, the Obama administration recently announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in a military tribunal, as opposed to federal court. Until the death of Osama Bin Laden, Mohammed was the person most directly involved in the 9/11 attacks apprehended by US authorities. As such, his prosecution would function as a symbol of much-awaited justice for those Americans whose lives were devastated by the horrific events of that day. However, in deciding to try Mohammed in a military tribunal, that justice will be muted and its significance undermined.
The US government set a dangerous precedent when it passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). In doing so, it gave another governing body, one that is not required to adhere to the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution, jurisdiction to determine the guilt or innocence of non-citizens suspected of terror-related crimes. For the Constitution to continue to serve as a fundamental governing principle nationally and internationally, its validity and dominance in the federal criminal justice system should never be questioned. To ensure this, when a person, citizen or non-citizen, is charged with any crime, from petty larceny to tax evasion or terrorism, there can be only one set of rules that govern what rights the defendant is entitled to.
The MCA is contrary to the principles established by the US during more than 200 years of common law. The MCA allows military tribunals to admit into evidence confessions that do not respect an individual's Miranda or Fifth Amendment rights, and the MCA does not require that a terror suspect be given a trial to determine his guilt once he is deemed an enemy combatant, essentially allowing for his indefinite detention. However, despite the fact that the federal criminal justice system does provide these fundamental rights, it is more than adequately able to handle the trials of suspected terrorists. The executive branch, through its specially trained district attorneys, FBI agents and terrorist task forces, is prepared to deal with the particular challenges that come with investigating and trying a suspect that is not a US citizen, likely to be uncooperative and to evoke controversy and intense emotion in the public forum."
Friday, September 9, 2011
UK riots cause 8% rise in jailed children | Society | The Guardian
UK riots cause 8% rise in jailed children Society The Guardian
"The influx of child prisoners accused of involvement in last month's looting and rioting has contributed to an 8% increase in the juvenile prison population in England and Wales.
That calculation is based on Youth Justice Board (YJB) figures which show 170 riot offenders aged under 18 are now in custody, adding to the 2,075 child prisoners recorded in June, the latest statistics available. A Ministry of Justice report out on Thursday suggests a lower tally; it says there are 125 juveniles behind bars for riot offences, with 21 sentenced and 104 on remand.
The Guardian has learned that two-fifths of children in custody have had no previous connection with youth offending teams – a marker of criminal behaviour which resulted in a court order.
The YJB, which has responsibility for the administration of youth justice in England and Wales, says that half of under-18s brought in front of the courts on charges of rioting and looting last month were completely unknown to the criminal justice system and only 10-15% of juvenile rioters had any sort of gang affiliation.
The statistics on minors, who comprise 20% of all those convicted of riot offences, undermine claims from justice minister Kenneth Clarke that the riots were caused by a hardcore criminal underclass.
Campaigners have warned the sudden rise in the number of children in jail was a possible breach of the UK's commitment to protect children's rights. Article 37 in the UN convention states that custody should only be used "as a last resort".
Andrew Neilson, assistant director at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: "We were very concerned that there was a rush to custody. Normally young people would be recognised as vulnerable and different and that would be reflected... and that wasn't happening. It's been a one-size-fits-all approach.
"Pushing someone from no contact at all to a youth offending institute, which is the deep end is a very risky thing [and]... this is one of the most disproportionate impacts of the riot sentencing"
"The overuse of remand and some of the sentencing certainly puts in doubt the government's claims that child custody is used as a last resort."
John Drew, the chief executive of the YJB, said there was a crisis in young offenders' institutions (YOIs) because of the sudden spike in the prison population. Offenders, especially in London, have had to share cells or have been moved to prisons hundreds of miles away from home.
He said one of the YJB's biggest concerns was the threat of violence against naive entrants to the prison system. Therefore, all those on riot sentences have been categorised as vulnerable, a measure normally reserved for a small minority."
"The influx of child prisoners accused of involvement in last month's looting and rioting has contributed to an 8% increase in the juvenile prison population in England and Wales.
That calculation is based on Youth Justice Board (YJB) figures which show 170 riot offenders aged under 18 are now in custody, adding to the 2,075 child prisoners recorded in June, the latest statistics available. A Ministry of Justice report out on Thursday suggests a lower tally; it says there are 125 juveniles behind bars for riot offences, with 21 sentenced and 104 on remand.
The Guardian has learned that two-fifths of children in custody have had no previous connection with youth offending teams – a marker of criminal behaviour which resulted in a court order.
The YJB, which has responsibility for the administration of youth justice in England and Wales, says that half of under-18s brought in front of the courts on charges of rioting and looting last month were completely unknown to the criminal justice system and only 10-15% of juvenile rioters had any sort of gang affiliation.
The statistics on minors, who comprise 20% of all those convicted of riot offences, undermine claims from justice minister Kenneth Clarke that the riots were caused by a hardcore criminal underclass.
Campaigners have warned the sudden rise in the number of children in jail was a possible breach of the UK's commitment to protect children's rights. Article 37 in the UN convention states that custody should only be used "as a last resort".
Andrew Neilson, assistant director at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: "We were very concerned that there was a rush to custody. Normally young people would be recognised as vulnerable and different and that would be reflected... and that wasn't happening. It's been a one-size-fits-all approach.
"Pushing someone from no contact at all to a youth offending institute, which is the deep end is a very risky thing [and]... this is one of the most disproportionate impacts of the riot sentencing"
"The overuse of remand and some of the sentencing certainly puts in doubt the government's claims that child custody is used as a last resort."
John Drew, the chief executive of the YJB, said there was a crisis in young offenders' institutions (YOIs) because of the sudden spike in the prison population. Offenders, especially in London, have had to share cells or have been moved to prisons hundreds of miles away from home.
He said one of the YJB's biggest concerns was the threat of violence against naive entrants to the prison system. Therefore, all those on riot sentences have been categorised as vulnerable, a measure normally reserved for a small minority."
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich Agree With ACLU on Something: Criminal Justice Needs a Tweak - Broward/Palm Beach News - The Daily Pulp
Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich Agree With ACLU on Something: Criminal Justice Needs a Tweak - Broward/Palm Beach News - The Daily Pulp
"Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is the latest to sign GOP group Right on Crime's Statement of Principles. It's being framed as a conservative approach to reforming the criminal justice system.
Other conservative backers include Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, and Tony Perkins (president of the anti-gay, anti-choice Family Research Council).
The Texas Public Policy Foundation initiated the Right on Crime campaign. It's based on reforms implemented in Texas that the group claims have reduced crime by 9 percent while saving taxpayers more than $2 billion.
According to the statement, Right on Crime supports "constitutionally limited government, transparency, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise." The goal of the campaign is to "produce the best possible results at the lowest possible costs" while treating crime victims as "'consumers' of the criminal justice system."
All pretty much in line with core conservative principles, right? Read on.The statement is critical of the criminal justice system's overreliance on prisons, which the statement says will in some cases have "the unintended consequence of hardening non-violent, low-risk offenders." Like drug users?
The American Civil Liberties Union -- a cherished whipping boy for right-wing pundits -- agrees with them.
"The authors of Right on Crime may come to their recommendations from a different place from the ACLU," says Baylor Johnson, an ACLU of Florida spokesperson. "[But] the conclusions they draw are very much in line with reforms for which the ACLU has been advocating for years."
A recent ACLU report says the war on drugs has caused the United States to have the world's highest incarceration rate at an astronomical cost. The report suggests that several states known to be "tough on crime" have moved to decriminalize nonviolent drug offenders, a move that has saved them loads of money.
Both groups want to do away with mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders. Rick Scott too."
"Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is the latest to sign GOP group Right on Crime's Statement of Principles. It's being framed as a conservative approach to reforming the criminal justice system.
Other conservative backers include Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, and Tony Perkins (president of the anti-gay, anti-choice Family Research Council).
The Texas Public Policy Foundation initiated the Right on Crime campaign. It's based on reforms implemented in Texas that the group claims have reduced crime by 9 percent while saving taxpayers more than $2 billion.
According to the statement, Right on Crime supports "constitutionally limited government, transparency, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise." The goal of the campaign is to "produce the best possible results at the lowest possible costs" while treating crime victims as "'consumers' of the criminal justice system."
All pretty much in line with core conservative principles, right? Read on.The statement is critical of the criminal justice system's overreliance on prisons, which the statement says will in some cases have "the unintended consequence of hardening non-violent, low-risk offenders." Like drug users?
The American Civil Liberties Union -- a cherished whipping boy for right-wing pundits -- agrees with them.
"The authors of Right on Crime may come to their recommendations from a different place from the ACLU," says Baylor Johnson, an ACLU of Florida spokesperson. "[But] the conclusions they draw are very much in line with reforms for which the ACLU has been advocating for years."
A recent ACLU report says the war on drugs has caused the United States to have the world's highest incarceration rate at an astronomical cost. The report suggests that several states known to be "tough on crime" have moved to decriminalize nonviolent drug offenders, a move that has saved them loads of money.
Both groups want to do away with mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders. Rick Scott too."
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
UK riots: Police chief blames soft sentencing - mirror.co.uk
UK riots: Police chief blames soft sentencing - mirror.co.uk
"BRITAIN’S top police chief yesterday blamed soft sentencing and sky-high reoffending rates for last month’s riots.
Tim Godwin, acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, demanded that “courts prove crime has a consequence”.
He spoke as it was revealed 75% of those arrested in the riots had a criminal record, with 21% under 18 years old.
Mr Godwin told a Commons committee: “This is a wake-up call for the criminal justice system.
“We have been seeking to make justice more relevant – something we need to do. The amount of people with previous convictions poses questions.”
London Mayor Boris Johnson also demanded harsher sentencing, saying: “What was the key factor likely to make you riot? It was that you had a criminal record.”
The attacks came after Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said rioters came from a “feral underclass… from a broken penal system”, but rejected tougher sentences."
Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/09/07/uk-riots-police-chief-blames-soft-sentencing-
"BRITAIN’S top police chief yesterday blamed soft sentencing and sky-high reoffending rates for last month’s riots.
Tim Godwin, acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, demanded that “courts prove crime has a consequence”.
He spoke as it was revealed 75% of those arrested in the riots had a criminal record, with 21% under 18 years old.
Mr Godwin told a Commons committee: “This is a wake-up call for the criminal justice system.
“We have been seeking to make justice more relevant – something we need to do. The amount of people with previous convictions poses questions.”
London Mayor Boris Johnson also demanded harsher sentencing, saying: “What was the key factor likely to make you riot? It was that you had a criminal record.”
The attacks came after Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said rioters came from a “feral underclass… from a broken penal system”, but rejected tougher sentences."
Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/09/07/uk-riots-police-chief-blames-soft-sentencing-
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Nation's Jails Struggle With Mentally Ill Prisoners | AHN
Nation's Jails Struggle With Mentally Ill Prisoners AHN
"Three hundred and fifty thousand: That's a conservative estimate for the number of offenders with mental illness confined in America's prisons and jails.
More Americans receive mental health treatment in prisons and jails than in hospitals or treatment centers. In fact, the three largest inpatient psychiatric facilities in the country are jails: Los Angeles County Jail, Rikers Island Jail in New York City and Cook County Jail in Illinois.
"We have a criminal justice system which has a very clear purpose: You get arrested. We want justice. We try you, and justice hopefully prevails. It was never built to handle people that were very, very ill, at least with mental illness," Judge Steve Leifman tells Laura Sullivan, guest host of weekends on All Things Considered.
When the government began closing state-run hospitals in the'80s, people with mental illness had nowhere to turn; many ended up in jail. Leifman saw the problem first-hand decades ago in the courtroom. When individuals suffering from mental illness came before him accused of petty crimes, he didn't have many options.
"What we used to do, which I tell people was the definition of insanity [...] was they would commit an offense, the police would arrest them, they'd come to court, they'd be acting out so we would order two or three psychological evaluations at great expense, we would determine that they were incompetent to stand trial and we'd re-release them back to the community and kind of held our breath and crossed our fingers and hoped that somehow they'd get better and come back and we could try them," he says.
Instead, many disappeared and got re-arrested. Sometimes within minutes.
"They'd walk out the door, they were ill, they'd act out, because [the jail] is next to the courthouse there are several officers out there, and they'd get re-arrested," he says.
Not only was the system inefficient, it was costly as well. When Leifman asked the University of South Florida to look at who the highest users of criminal justice and mental health services in Miami-Dade County, researchers found the prime users were 97 people, individuals diagnosed primarily with schizophrenia.
Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90059074?Nation%27s%20Jails%20Struggle%20With%20Mentally%20Ill%20Prisoners#ixzz1XBijfAne
"Three hundred and fifty thousand: That's a conservative estimate for the number of offenders with mental illness confined in America's prisons and jails.
More Americans receive mental health treatment in prisons and jails than in hospitals or treatment centers. In fact, the three largest inpatient psychiatric facilities in the country are jails: Los Angeles County Jail, Rikers Island Jail in New York City and Cook County Jail in Illinois.
"We have a criminal justice system which has a very clear purpose: You get arrested. We want justice. We try you, and justice hopefully prevails. It was never built to handle people that were very, very ill, at least with mental illness," Judge Steve Leifman tells Laura Sullivan, guest host of weekends on All Things Considered.
When the government began closing state-run hospitals in the'80s, people with mental illness had nowhere to turn; many ended up in jail. Leifman saw the problem first-hand decades ago in the courtroom. When individuals suffering from mental illness came before him accused of petty crimes, he didn't have many options.
"What we used to do, which I tell people was the definition of insanity [...] was they would commit an offense, the police would arrest them, they'd come to court, they'd be acting out so we would order two or three psychological evaluations at great expense, we would determine that they were incompetent to stand trial and we'd re-release them back to the community and kind of held our breath and crossed our fingers and hoped that somehow they'd get better and come back and we could try them," he says.
Instead, many disappeared and got re-arrested. Sometimes within minutes.
"They'd walk out the door, they were ill, they'd act out, because [the jail] is next to the courthouse there are several officers out there, and they'd get re-arrested," he says.
Not only was the system inefficient, it was costly as well. When Leifman asked the University of South Florida to look at who the highest users of criminal justice and mental health services in Miami-Dade County, researchers found the prime users were 97 people, individuals diagnosed primarily with schizophrenia.
Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90059074?Nation%27s%20Jails%20Struggle%20With%20Mentally%20Ill%20Prisoners#ixzz1XBijfAne
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Towerlight » Forensic accreditation offered at undergraduate and graduate levels
The Towerlight » Forensic accreditation offered at undergraduate and graduate levels
"When forensic science comes to mind, some people envision television shows like CSI and Dexter, but for Towson students, there’s an opportunity for students to experience it firsthand.
The Jess and Mildred Fisher College of Science and Mathematics,home to both the undergraduate and
graduate programs accredited by the Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, provides several training opportunities for hands-on experience.
“Both Towson’s undergrad and graduate programs have FEPAC accreditation,” Mark Profili, director of the forensic science program, said. “We are one of only four schools that have both their undergrad and graduate programs accredited.”
Protocol for accreditation involves meeting several standards and requirements for faculty, assessments, University support, program director and application acceptance process. A working relationship with a laboratory is necessary, too. All of these must be met to maintain accreditation, according to Profili.
Towson’s undergraduate curriculum provides training in one of three specific tracks- general forensics, forensic DNA and forensic trace evidence/toxicology track. Within these programs, training includes experience with pipe bombs, chemical make-up of ammonium bombs and the use of McCormick spices for finger printing, a method developed by students in the program. Distinctive topics such as death analysis and advanced DNA technologies are also incorporated.
“Students are taught the background science necessary to understand the field wherever the technology takes it and students get hands on experience with state of the art equipment and protocols that are used in the field today,” Forensic Science Professor Cynthia Zeller said.“It is the perfect combination of basic and applied science.”
Students may decide to pursue a master’s degree in forensic science, where the focus is primarily in the study of DNA."
"When forensic science comes to mind, some people envision television shows like CSI and Dexter, but for Towson students, there’s an opportunity for students to experience it firsthand.
The Jess and Mildred Fisher College of Science and Mathematics,home to both the undergraduate and
graduate programs accredited by the Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, provides several training opportunities for hands-on experience.
“Both Towson’s undergrad and graduate programs have FEPAC accreditation,” Mark Profili, director of the forensic science program, said. “We are one of only four schools that have both their undergrad and graduate programs accredited.”
Protocol for accreditation involves meeting several standards and requirements for faculty, assessments, University support, program director and application acceptance process. A working relationship with a laboratory is necessary, too. All of these must be met to maintain accreditation, according to Profili.
Towson’s undergraduate curriculum provides training in one of three specific tracks- general forensics, forensic DNA and forensic trace evidence/toxicology track. Within these programs, training includes experience with pipe bombs, chemical make-up of ammonium bombs and the use of McCormick spices for finger printing, a method developed by students in the program. Distinctive topics such as death analysis and advanced DNA technologies are also incorporated.
“Students are taught the background science necessary to understand the field wherever the technology takes it and students get hands on experience with state of the art equipment and protocols that are used in the field today,” Forensic Science Professor Cynthia Zeller said.“It is the perfect combination of basic and applied science.”
Students may decide to pursue a master’s degree in forensic science, where the focus is primarily in the study of DNA."
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Banning Kids From Streets May Make Us Less Safe: Mike Males - Bloomberg
Banning Kids From Streets May Make Us Less Safe: Mike Males - Bloomberg
"In the wake of flash-mob riots in several cities, fears of gang violence and age-old anxiety about kids on the streets, authorities in Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities are adopting or beefing up curfews that ban youths from being in public during school hours and at night.
Juvenile curfews are unique to the U.S. No other country, including those in Latin America and Asia or even the U.K. during recent riots in London, invokes such measures except during national emergencies -- and then they apply to all ages.
Although America’s best measure of crime, the National Crime Victimization Survey, finds violence by juveniles has plummeted to a record low and Federal Bureau of Investigation reports also show youth arrests for violent crimes at a nadir, officials and news outlets seem eager to postulate a crisis. For example, news reports have depicted murders of school-aged youths in Chicago as an alarming new trend even though coroners’ records show today’s urban youths, including Chicago’s, are safer from homicide than at any time in at least 40 years.
Similarly, the notion that mass curfews and crackdowns have become necessary because of violence enabled by social media is dubious. In reality, only the term “flash mob” is new. The 1965 Watts riot in Los Angeles began within 20 minutes of its instigating incident as a few onlookers quickly grew to a mob of hundreds, then thousands. “Youth in Danger,” a 1956 report by congressional investigators, cited numerous mob incidents, including ones in Philadelphia identical to those now labeled as flash mobs. The social media of the time were talking and telephones.
Rare Exception
Few studies find curfews effective. One exception, a widely cited analysis by Patrick Kline, a University of California, Berkeley, economist, found small reductions in crime among younger teens. Unfortunately, this study only included cities that implemented curfews and failed to account for national trends showing much larger crime declines among younger teens than among those older teens subject to curfews, including in cities without curfews.
For example, both property and violent crime rates fell steeply in the 1990s and 2000s among youths in San Francisco, which didn’t have a curfew. A “systematic review of empirical research on juvenile curfews” in city after city by Kenneth Adams, an Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis associate professor, found “the evidence does not support the argument that curfews prevent crime and victimization.” Likewise, a study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice found that during the 1990s and 2000s, juvenile crime and crime in general fell faster in California cities that didn’t enforce youth curfews than in those that did."
"In the wake of flash-mob riots in several cities, fears of gang violence and age-old anxiety about kids on the streets, authorities in Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities are adopting or beefing up curfews that ban youths from being in public during school hours and at night.
Juvenile curfews are unique to the U.S. No other country, including those in Latin America and Asia or even the U.K. during recent riots in London, invokes such measures except during national emergencies -- and then they apply to all ages.
Although America’s best measure of crime, the National Crime Victimization Survey, finds violence by juveniles has plummeted to a record low and Federal Bureau of Investigation reports also show youth arrests for violent crimes at a nadir, officials and news outlets seem eager to postulate a crisis. For example, news reports have depicted murders of school-aged youths in Chicago as an alarming new trend even though coroners’ records show today’s urban youths, including Chicago’s, are safer from homicide than at any time in at least 40 years.
Similarly, the notion that mass curfews and crackdowns have become necessary because of violence enabled by social media is dubious. In reality, only the term “flash mob” is new. The 1965 Watts riot in Los Angeles began within 20 minutes of its instigating incident as a few onlookers quickly grew to a mob of hundreds, then thousands. “Youth in Danger,” a 1956 report by congressional investigators, cited numerous mob incidents, including ones in Philadelphia identical to those now labeled as flash mobs. The social media of the time were talking and telephones.
Rare Exception
Few studies find curfews effective. One exception, a widely cited analysis by Patrick Kline, a University of California, Berkeley, economist, found small reductions in crime among younger teens. Unfortunately, this study only included cities that implemented curfews and failed to account for national trends showing much larger crime declines among younger teens than among those older teens subject to curfews, including in cities without curfews.
For example, both property and violent crime rates fell steeply in the 1990s and 2000s among youths in San Francisco, which didn’t have a curfew. A “systematic review of empirical research on juvenile curfews” in city after city by Kenneth Adams, an Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis associate professor, found “the evidence does not support the argument that curfews prevent crime and victimization.” Likewise, a study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice found that during the 1990s and 2000s, juvenile crime and crime in general fell faster in California cities that didn’t enforce youth curfews than in those that did."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)