Criminal justice departments prepare for N.O. budget process - New Orleans News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - FOX 8 Live WVUE-TV Channel 8
"New Orleans -- With just under two months left for the Mayor and the council to decide how to spend nearly a half a billion of your tax dollars next year, there’s a lot of talk about the budget process.
“It should be somewhere I suspect in the range of $485 million. It’s about what it was last year,” says Councilwoman Stacy Head.
Head says she suspects every department would like to have more money, but she says there is only so much of it to go around. When it comes to the criminal justice system, Head says it’s about spending smart.
District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro says he plans to ask the city for slightly more money for his office. Even so, he’s been critical of the Criminal District Court judges over the past year about wasting resources, saying they need to work harder.
“The court system does not operate terribly efficient and if you talk to any group, they’ll say it’s the other one’s fault. But bottom line, it’s the DA’s office, it’s the Public Defender’s office and it’s the judges,” says Head.
The councilwoman says those three agencies need to get together and figure out how to move cases through the system more efficiently.
Last year, $200,000 was cut from Criminal District Court. This year, the court plans to ask for that money back, bringing its overall budget to somewhere around $3 million."
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Michelle Alexander: More Black Men Are In Prison Today Than Were Enslaved In 1850
Michelle Alexander: More Black Men Are In Prison Today Than Were Enslaved In 1850
"More black men are behind bars or under the watch of the criminal justice system than there were enslaved in 1850, according to the author of a book about racial discrimination and criminal justice.
Ohio State University law professor and civil rights activist Michelle Alexander highlighted the troubling statistic while speaking in front of an audience at the Pasadena Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, Elev8 reports.
Alexander, the author of "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness," reportedly claimed there are more African American men in prison and jail, or on probation and parole, than were slaves before the start of the Civil War.
More than 846,000 black men were incarcerated in 2008, according to U.S. Bureau of Justice estimates reported by NewsOne. African Americans make up 13.6 percent of the U.S. population according to census data, but black men reportedly make up 40.2 percent of all prison inmates.
The criminal justice system is the newest in a long line of societal structures that have disenfranchised people of color, Alexander argues in her book, according to ColorLines.
In an excerpt from her book published on her website, Alexander writes that despite today's belief in "colorblindness," our criminal justice system effectively bars African American men from citizenship, treating them as a separate caste:
"Denying African Americans citizenship was deemed essential to the formation of the original union. Hundreds of years later, America is still not an egalitarian democracy. The arguments and rationalizations that have been trotted out in support of racial exclusion and discrimination in its various forms have changed and evolved, but the outcome has remained largely the same."
More African American men were disenfranchised due to felony convictions in 2004 than in 1870, "the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race," she wrote in a Huffington Post blog published last year."
"More black men are behind bars or under the watch of the criminal justice system than there were enslaved in 1850, according to the author of a book about racial discrimination and criminal justice.
Ohio State University law professor and civil rights activist Michelle Alexander highlighted the troubling statistic while speaking in front of an audience at the Pasadena Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, Elev8 reports.
Alexander, the author of "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness," reportedly claimed there are more African American men in prison and jail, or on probation and parole, than were slaves before the start of the Civil War.
More than 846,000 black men were incarcerated in 2008, according to U.S. Bureau of Justice estimates reported by NewsOne. African Americans make up 13.6 percent of the U.S. population according to census data, but black men reportedly make up 40.2 percent of all prison inmates.
The criminal justice system is the newest in a long line of societal structures that have disenfranchised people of color, Alexander argues in her book, according to ColorLines.
In an excerpt from her book published on her website, Alexander writes that despite today's belief in "colorblindness," our criminal justice system effectively bars African American men from citizenship, treating them as a separate caste:
"Denying African Americans citizenship was deemed essential to the formation of the original union. Hundreds of years later, America is still not an egalitarian democracy. The arguments and rationalizations that have been trotted out in support of racial exclusion and discrimination in its various forms have changed and evolved, but the outcome has remained largely the same."
More African American men were disenfranchised due to felony convictions in 2004 than in 1870, "the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race," she wrote in a Huffington Post blog published last year."
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Victim agencies to receive grants | The Tribune
Victim agencies to receive grants | The Tribune
"Two Lawrence County agencies that assist crime victims will receive grants from the Ohio Crime Victim Compensation fund totaling more than $136,000, according to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine’s office.
The Criminal Justice Program in the Office of Lawrence County Prosecutor J.B. Collier Jr., will receive $66,800 in grant funds while the Lawrence County Domestic Violence Task Force domestic violence shelter have been awarded $69,500, according to a press release.
Officials with both agencies say the annual grants, which are awarded as part of the State Victims Assistance Act and the federal Victims of Crime Act, are vital to providing local services to victims of crimes and domestic violence in Lawrence County. The grants require a 25 percent local match.
Kathy Beals, director of victim’s assistance in Collier’s office, said the grant money is used to cover personnel costs for its three victims advocates. Advocates serve as a liaison between the victim and the prosecutor, she said.
“We lead them through the criminal court proceedings, educate them and go to these court proceedings if they are not able to attend,” Beals said. She added advocates also help victims file compensation claims for uncovered medical and/or counseling bills and help them register for the VINELink service. She said in Lawrence County advocates assist victims of both felony and misdemeanor crimes.
“If there were no victim advocacy for Lawrence County, the prosecutors themselves could not contact every victim in the cases, so their voices wouldn’t be heard essentially. There are too many cases for them to actually cover,” Beals said.
Elaine Payne, director of the Lawrence County Domestic Violence Task Force, said the funds are equally important for her agency. Without the annual assistance its domestic violence shelter would “absolutely shut down,” she said. As it is, she added, the agency struggles to raise the required 25 percent local match every year."
"Two Lawrence County agencies that assist crime victims will receive grants from the Ohio Crime Victim Compensation fund totaling more than $136,000, according to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine’s office.
The Criminal Justice Program in the Office of Lawrence County Prosecutor J.B. Collier Jr., will receive $66,800 in grant funds while the Lawrence County Domestic Violence Task Force domestic violence shelter have been awarded $69,500, according to a press release.
Officials with both agencies say the annual grants, which are awarded as part of the State Victims Assistance Act and the federal Victims of Crime Act, are vital to providing local services to victims of crimes and domestic violence in Lawrence County. The grants require a 25 percent local match.
Kathy Beals, director of victim’s assistance in Collier’s office, said the grant money is used to cover personnel costs for its three victims advocates. Advocates serve as a liaison between the victim and the prosecutor, she said.
“We lead them through the criminal court proceedings, educate them and go to these court proceedings if they are not able to attend,” Beals said. She added advocates also help victims file compensation claims for uncovered medical and/or counseling bills and help them register for the VINELink service. She said in Lawrence County advocates assist victims of both felony and misdemeanor crimes.
“If there were no victim advocacy for Lawrence County, the prosecutors themselves could not contact every victim in the cases, so their voices wouldn’t be heard essentially. There are too many cases for them to actually cover,” Beals said.
Elaine Payne, director of the Lawrence County Domestic Violence Task Force, said the funds are equally important for her agency. Without the annual assistance its domestic violence shelter would “absolutely shut down,” she said. As it is, she added, the agency struggles to raise the required 25 percent local match every year."
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Forgiveness, regret and justice
"The culture of South Korea places a high value on honor, or face. When someone expresses regret or asks forgiveness they are seen as repudiating their inappropriate behavior and choosing proper conduct. This choice to behave in a proper manner reduces their dishonor and saves face. Admission of wrongdoing, expressing regret, and asking for forgiveness are behaviors that are also granted high standing in the Korean criminal justice system. A defendant who admits to wrong behavior receives a reduced sentence. A defendant who proclaims their innocence is perceived as unrepentant and, if convicted, receives a harsher penalty. The regretful offender usually obtains release from confinement during the pre-trial period and a defendant who obtains the forgiveness of the victim, or the victim’s family, often escapes jail time even for the most egregious offenses.
However, this system often results in court decisions that confound Western sensibilities and, more and more frequently, infuriate the Korean populace. Recently two cases have brought attention once again on the often inscrutable decisions of the Korean courts. The first case revolves around the release of the box office film Dogani , or “the Crucible,” which dramatizes the sexual molestation of students at a school for the hearing-impaired from 2000 to 2005 and highlights the minimal punishment imposed on the perpetrators. The second case is a recent decision by the Seoul high court drastically reducing the prison sentences imposed by the lower court on four young men in their 20s convicted of the prolonged sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl. In both cases when reducing the prison sentence, or imposing probation in lieu of prison, the courts referred to the perpetrators expressions of regret and, more significantly, to the fact that the perpetrators had reached settlements with the victims and their families.
However, the question arises whether reducing criminal sentences or choosing whether to impose only probation based on these factors is appropriate. On closer examination it is clear that this system creates perverse incentives. A defendant’s knowledge that a reduction of the severity of the prison sentence imposed will be based on an admission of guilt and its concomitant perceived regret may cause even an innocent defendant to admit guilt in order to reduce the potential penalty. This becomes even more likely when a defendant realizes that admission of guilt can result in avoiding jail time or even the potential cessation of prosecution. Nonetheless as society must rely on the criminal justice system to accurately distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, everyone under the law must hope that the incentives created by this factor never result in any severe violation of an innocent individual’s basic human rights to life or liberty.
Regardless of society’s hope regarding infrequent admissions of guilt by innocent individuals, nothing can excuse the court’s predilection towards reducing or even vacating the criminal sentences of those offenders who obtain the forgiveness of the victim, or the victim’s family. From a purely philosophical standpoint when a person commits a crime, that person commits it not just against the victim, but against the entire society. According to this theory of social contract, victims simply do not have the power to free the perpetrator from punishment. The offender is punished because of their violation of the social contract under which all members of a society have agreed to live. The victim may be eligible for compensation for pain and suffering, but the offender cannot escape the punishment of society. Repeated failure by the courts to adequately punish offenders for violations of the social contract inevitably undermines the rule of law that governs society and increases everyone’s vulnerability to crime."
Read more: http://www.koreaherald.com/opinion/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20111011000131
"The culture of South Korea places a high value on honor, or face. When someone expresses regret or asks forgiveness they are seen as repudiating their inappropriate behavior and choosing proper conduct. This choice to behave in a proper manner reduces their dishonor and saves face. Admission of wrongdoing, expressing regret, and asking for forgiveness are behaviors that are also granted high standing in the Korean criminal justice system. A defendant who admits to wrong behavior receives a reduced sentence. A defendant who proclaims their innocence is perceived as unrepentant and, if convicted, receives a harsher penalty. The regretful offender usually obtains release from confinement during the pre-trial period and a defendant who obtains the forgiveness of the victim, or the victim’s family, often escapes jail time even for the most egregious offenses.
However, this system often results in court decisions that confound Western sensibilities and, more and more frequently, infuriate the Korean populace. Recently two cases have brought attention once again on the often inscrutable decisions of the Korean courts. The first case revolves around the release of the box office film Dogani , or “the Crucible,” which dramatizes the sexual molestation of students at a school for the hearing-impaired from 2000 to 2005 and highlights the minimal punishment imposed on the perpetrators. The second case is a recent decision by the Seoul high court drastically reducing the prison sentences imposed by the lower court on four young men in their 20s convicted of the prolonged sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl. In both cases when reducing the prison sentence, or imposing probation in lieu of prison, the courts referred to the perpetrators expressions of regret and, more significantly, to the fact that the perpetrators had reached settlements with the victims and their families.
However, the question arises whether reducing criminal sentences or choosing whether to impose only probation based on these factors is appropriate. On closer examination it is clear that this system creates perverse incentives. A defendant’s knowledge that a reduction of the severity of the prison sentence imposed will be based on an admission of guilt and its concomitant perceived regret may cause even an innocent defendant to admit guilt in order to reduce the potential penalty. This becomes even more likely when a defendant realizes that admission of guilt can result in avoiding jail time or even the potential cessation of prosecution. Nonetheless as society must rely on the criminal justice system to accurately distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, everyone under the law must hope that the incentives created by this factor never result in any severe violation of an innocent individual’s basic human rights to life or liberty.
Regardless of society’s hope regarding infrequent admissions of guilt by innocent individuals, nothing can excuse the court’s predilection towards reducing or even vacating the criminal sentences of those offenders who obtain the forgiveness of the victim, or the victim’s family. From a purely philosophical standpoint when a person commits a crime, that person commits it not just against the victim, but against the entire society. According to this theory of social contract, victims simply do not have the power to free the perpetrator from punishment. The offender is punished because of their violation of the social contract under which all members of a society have agreed to live. The victim may be eligible for compensation for pain and suffering, but the offender cannot escape the punishment of society. Repeated failure by the courts to adequately punish offenders for violations of the social contract inevitably undermines the rule of law that governs society and increases everyone’s vulnerability to crime."
Read more: http://www.koreaherald.com/opinion/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20111011000131
Monday, October 10, 2011
Katy Welter: Finding the "Fat Catchers" of Criminal Justice
Katy Welter: Finding the "Fat Catchers" of Criminal Justice
"Cook County criminal justice can learn some valuable lessons from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Oakland A's. Namely, experts are often overconfident. They make mistakes because they see the world from a narrow, limited perspective, and they have inadequate, unsystematic information. Their incorrect diagnoses can be tremendously costly. Rather than rely on the personal observations and experience of experts to solve our problems, it may be better to make simple, incremental changes and then observe the results.
In 2002, the NIH abruptly terminated one of the largest medical studies ever conducted. The reason? The treatment provided to tens of thousands of menopausal women, hormone replacement therapy, turned out to increase the patients' risk of heart disease and cancer. This was particularly shocking because, for decades, the treatment had been widely thought to be relatively low risk. Doctors had not detected the complications.
At a recent conference in downtown Chicago, Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago told a group of prosecutors (and a few observers) about the relevance of this to criminal justice policy. According to Ludwig, the initial hormone replacement studies made the treatment seem safe and effective because the women who signed up for the experimental treatment were likely to be health conscious--and, thus, were especially likely to be healthy. As a result, few of those women developed heart disease or cancers. If the women needing treatment had been randomly assigned to varying therapies, including hormone replacement, the risks of the hormones would have been seen. But the selection bias, as it's called, masked the negative effects, and it was subtle enough to escape the experts' notice, yet significant enough to devastate the NIH trial.
Similarly, innovative criminal justice reforms may produce misleading results if they are not implemented using systematic research methods. For example, a three percent decrease in recidivism is too small to be seen by decision makers active in the day-to-day administration of justice, but a change of that size could be detected in a well-designed experiment. And a 3% reduction in recidivism would save taxpayers and the victims of crime millions of dollars. It is something you would want to know about."
"Cook County criminal justice can learn some valuable lessons from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Oakland A's. Namely, experts are often overconfident. They make mistakes because they see the world from a narrow, limited perspective, and they have inadequate, unsystematic information. Their incorrect diagnoses can be tremendously costly. Rather than rely on the personal observations and experience of experts to solve our problems, it may be better to make simple, incremental changes and then observe the results.
In 2002, the NIH abruptly terminated one of the largest medical studies ever conducted. The reason? The treatment provided to tens of thousands of menopausal women, hormone replacement therapy, turned out to increase the patients' risk of heart disease and cancer. This was particularly shocking because, for decades, the treatment had been widely thought to be relatively low risk. Doctors had not detected the complications.
At a recent conference in downtown Chicago, Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago told a group of prosecutors (and a few observers) about the relevance of this to criminal justice policy. According to Ludwig, the initial hormone replacement studies made the treatment seem safe and effective because the women who signed up for the experimental treatment were likely to be health conscious--and, thus, were especially likely to be healthy. As a result, few of those women developed heart disease or cancers. If the women needing treatment had been randomly assigned to varying therapies, including hormone replacement, the risks of the hormones would have been seen. But the selection bias, as it's called, masked the negative effects, and it was subtle enough to escape the experts' notice, yet significant enough to devastate the NIH trial.
Similarly, innovative criminal justice reforms may produce misleading results if they are not implemented using systematic research methods. For example, a three percent decrease in recidivism is too small to be seen by decision makers active in the day-to-day administration of justice, but a change of that size could be detected in a well-designed experiment. And a 3% reduction in recidivism would save taxpayers and the victims of crime millions of dollars. It is something you would want to know about."
Friday, October 7, 2011
‘Incendiary,’ a Documentary About Willingham Case — Review - NYTimes.com
href="http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/movies/incendiary-a-documentary-about-willingham-case-review.html">‘Incendiary,’ a Documentary About Willingham Case — Review - NYTimes.com
"“Incendiary: The Willingham Case” covers a man’s execution in Texas for the murder of his children by arson. But this involving documentary, while sympathetic to opponents of the death penalty, isn’t focused on sorting out the ethical rights and wrongs of the practice. It centers instead on whether we understand or respect evolving standards of scientific evidence.
The much-reported case, in short: In 1991 two fire investigators in Corsicana, Tex., found evidence of arson that led to the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham in 2004. Years later, when nationally recognized experts examined the trial, that evidence was largely debunked. Even Texas standards had changed, suggesting that the forensic findings in the case were based more on folklore than on science.
Yet the state judicial system and oversight panels did not accept those new conclusions. Where “Incendiary” will most capture attention, though it does so soberly and professionally (no Michael Moore-style hyperbole here), is in its examination of the political role in that process. Specifically, it examines whether Gov. Rick Perry, who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and his appointees — particularly John Bradley, the prosecutor who from 2009 to earlier this year led the scientists on the recently formed Texas Forensic Science Commission — interfered with the hearing of re-examined forensics because it would have prevented a faithful assurance that no mistakes had been made.
The Innocence Project, including one of its founders, Barry Scheck, became involved in the case, making for some of the film’s most combative scenes. For contrast, Mr. Willingham’s original court-appointed lawyer, David Martin, is interviewed outdoors, where his remarks are interrupted by the crows of roosters. He calls his client a psychopath and a sociopath; says later scientific findings go against his common sense and personal experience; and hints that attorney-client privilege prevents him from saying more.
Mr. Martin is confident in his convictions. The filmmakers are confident about their science. Justice, this strong documentary asserts, is at risk in the division."
"“Incendiary: The Willingham Case” covers a man’s execution in Texas for the murder of his children by arson. But this involving documentary, while sympathetic to opponents of the death penalty, isn’t focused on sorting out the ethical rights and wrongs of the practice. It centers instead on whether we understand or respect evolving standards of scientific evidence.
The much-reported case, in short: In 1991 two fire investigators in Corsicana, Tex., found evidence of arson that led to the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham in 2004. Years later, when nationally recognized experts examined the trial, that evidence was largely debunked. Even Texas standards had changed, suggesting that the forensic findings in the case were based more on folklore than on science.
Yet the state judicial system and oversight panels did not accept those new conclusions. Where “Incendiary” will most capture attention, though it does so soberly and professionally (no Michael Moore-style hyperbole here), is in its examination of the political role in that process. Specifically, it examines whether Gov. Rick Perry, who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and his appointees — particularly John Bradley, the prosecutor who from 2009 to earlier this year led the scientists on the recently formed Texas Forensic Science Commission — interfered with the hearing of re-examined forensics because it would have prevented a faithful assurance that no mistakes had been made.
The Innocence Project, including one of its founders, Barry Scheck, became involved in the case, making for some of the film’s most combative scenes. For contrast, Mr. Willingham’s original court-appointed lawyer, David Martin, is interviewed outdoors, where his remarks are interrupted by the crows of roosters. He calls his client a psychopath and a sociopath; says later scientific findings go against his common sense and personal experience; and hints that attorney-client privilege prevents him from saying more.
Mr. Martin is confident in his convictions. The filmmakers are confident about their science. Justice, this strong documentary asserts, is at risk in the division."
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Jackson Death Trial Showcases iPhone Forensic Capabilities - PR Newswire - sacbee.com
Jackson Death Trial Showcases iPhone Forensic Capabilities - PR Newswire - sacbee.com
""iPhone users would be stunned to learn the amount of recoverable data we can get," says Mark McLaughlin of Los Angeles based Computer Forensics International. "When you hit delete it doesn't necessarily mean that message, text or picture is gone forever. You're just telling the iPhone, don't show it to me anymore and it flags that deleted data so it can be overwritten. So depending on the activity after the deletion, we may be able to bring it back like it was never deleted."
DEA Computer Forensics Examiner Stephen Marx testified today in the Michael Jackson Death Trial that he found emails the defendant Dr. Conrad Murray had sent hours before Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009. Not only did Marx recover critical timeline emails, he also discovered digital medical charts thought to be non-existent. But the key piece of evidence was a damaging audio recording of an impaired Michael Jackson reportedly made by Murray.
Computer forensic examiners like McLaughlin, routinely use very sophisticated software tools, such as EnCase, on civil and criminal cases. They start by first making a copy of the iPhone's entire memory – which includes active and deleted data. This exact copy doesn't disturb the original data which makes the examination forensically sound and admissible in court. Then the copy can be searched either visually or by using keywords. The recovered data is ultimately put into known iPhone categories and displayed."
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/05/3963662/jackson-death-trialshowcases.html#ixzz1a1PtaEbL
""iPhone users would be stunned to learn the amount of recoverable data we can get," says Mark McLaughlin of Los Angeles based Computer Forensics International. "When you hit delete it doesn't necessarily mean that message, text or picture is gone forever. You're just telling the iPhone, don't show it to me anymore and it flags that deleted data so it can be overwritten. So depending on the activity after the deletion, we may be able to bring it back like it was never deleted."
DEA Computer Forensics Examiner Stephen Marx testified today in the Michael Jackson Death Trial that he found emails the defendant Dr. Conrad Murray had sent hours before Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009. Not only did Marx recover critical timeline emails, he also discovered digital medical charts thought to be non-existent. But the key piece of evidence was a damaging audio recording of an impaired Michael Jackson reportedly made by Murray.
Computer forensic examiners like McLaughlin, routinely use very sophisticated software tools, such as EnCase, on civil and criminal cases. They start by first making a copy of the iPhone's entire memory – which includes active and deleted data. This exact copy doesn't disturb the original data which makes the examination forensically sound and admissible in court. Then the copy can be searched either visually or by using keywords. The recovered data is ultimately put into known iPhone categories and displayed."
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/05/3963662/jackson-death-trialshowcases.html#ixzz1a1PtaEbL
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Justice Reforms Help Child Witnesses | Stuff.co.nz
Justice Reforms Help Child Witnesses Stuff.co.nz
"Under 12s will be allowed to pre-record their evidence to court or appear by video link to protect child witnesses and speed up-hearings, under new measures to be introduced next year.
Justice Minister Simon Power has just announced a package of reforms to '' dramatically improve'' how children are treated in the criminal justice system.
Under new laws, to be introduced next year, a child's evidence must be recorded within six months. A youngster could only be re-called for further questioning only when ''absolutely necessary.''
Specialist intermediaries will also be brought in to improve the questioning of complainants under 18. They will be trained in the 'cognitive development and language comprehension' of children and funded using money raised by the $50 offender levy.
Child witnesses will also be allowed to have a 'support person' present while giving evidence. Currently they have to apply to a judge for permission.
Judges must also warn juries not to draw interferences from the demeanour of children who pre-record their evidence.
"Introducing specialist intermediaries and pre-recording a child's evidence and then playing it back at trial can be an effective way of sparing the children the trauma of attending trial many months later,'' Power said.
The inquisitorial-style package of reforms will be contained in the Evidence Amendment Bill, expected to be introduced into Parliament next year.
Power said the reforms were shaped by an Auckland University of Technology report on child witnesses, and a visit to Germany and Austria last year to investigate inquisitorial systems of justice.
"It disturbs me that AUT's research found that 30 per cent of children wept while testifying, more than 70 per cent of them did not understand a question posed by a defence lawyer, and that 65 per cent were accused by the defence of lying," Power said.
He said the judiciary will play a more active role in determining whether questions to be put to child witnesses are appropriate. "
"Under 12s will be allowed to pre-record their evidence to court or appear by video link to protect child witnesses and speed up-hearings, under new measures to be introduced next year.
Justice Minister Simon Power has just announced a package of reforms to '' dramatically improve'' how children are treated in the criminal justice system.
Under new laws, to be introduced next year, a child's evidence must be recorded within six months. A youngster could only be re-called for further questioning only when ''absolutely necessary.''
Specialist intermediaries will also be brought in to improve the questioning of complainants under 18. They will be trained in the 'cognitive development and language comprehension' of children and funded using money raised by the $50 offender levy.
Child witnesses will also be allowed to have a 'support person' present while giving evidence. Currently they have to apply to a judge for permission.
Judges must also warn juries not to draw interferences from the demeanour of children who pre-record their evidence.
"Introducing specialist intermediaries and pre-recording a child's evidence and then playing it back at trial can be an effective way of sparing the children the trauma of attending trial many months later,'' Power said.
The inquisitorial-style package of reforms will be contained in the Evidence Amendment Bill, expected to be introduced into Parliament next year.
Power said the reforms were shaped by an Auckland University of Technology report on child witnesses, and a visit to Germany and Austria last year to investigate inquisitorial systems of justice.
"It disturbs me that AUT's research found that 30 per cent of children wept while testifying, more than 70 per cent of them did not understand a question posed by a defence lawyer, and that 65 per cent were accused by the defence of lying," Power said.
He said the judiciary will play a more active role in determining whether questions to be put to child witnesses are appropriate. "
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Conservative Party Conference 2011: we must tackle 'feral underclass', says Ken Clarke - Telegraph
Conservative Party Conference 2011: we must tackle 'feral underclass', says Ken Clarke - Telegraph
"In his speech to the Conservative Party Conference, Mr Clarke said jails should be ''places of retribution but also places of reform."
Mr Clarke said he was ''dramatically'' expanding the working prisons programme and welcomed the support of eight major companies, including Virgin and Marks & Spencer.
The Justice Secretary, who has faced claims he is soft on crime, told the gathering in Manchester: ''At Altcourse Prison near Liverpool, prisoners do 40 hours of hard work every week in a metal workshop.
''Part of their earnings goes to fund services for victims of crime and because these prisoners have got some skills, they are less likely - a lot less likely - to return to prison.
''So the burden on the taxpayer, on you and me, is less.
''I am in the process of expanding this working prisons programme quite dramatically.
''It's is not something Government can do alone, we need the private sector, socially responsible private partners, on board.''
High-profile business leaders including Sir Richard Branson and Marks & Spencer boss Marc Bolland called for more criminals to be given jobs in a bid to harness the talents of ''potential superstars'' in the prison population in a joint letter to the Financial Times.
Among the other signatories are Matthew Davies of Pets at Home, Steve Holliday of National Grid, Ian Sarson of Compass Group, James Reed of Reed Specialist Recruitment, Malcolm Walker of Iceland Foods and James Timpson from the family key cutting and shoe repair empire.
Mr Clarke said: ''The idea is to provide hard work in prison so that prisoners would be doing something productive, instead of doing nothing.
''Plotting a more honest future instead of planning their next crime, earning money to pay back to victims instead of dreaming of creating new victims through future crimes.''
Mr Clarke repeated his claim that a ''feral underclass'' was responsible for the rioting that spread through English cities this summer. "
"In his speech to the Conservative Party Conference, Mr Clarke said jails should be ''places of retribution but also places of reform."
Mr Clarke said he was ''dramatically'' expanding the working prisons programme and welcomed the support of eight major companies, including Virgin and Marks & Spencer.
The Justice Secretary, who has faced claims he is soft on crime, told the gathering in Manchester: ''At Altcourse Prison near Liverpool, prisoners do 40 hours of hard work every week in a metal workshop.
''Part of their earnings goes to fund services for victims of crime and because these prisoners have got some skills, they are less likely - a lot less likely - to return to prison.
''So the burden on the taxpayer, on you and me, is less.
''I am in the process of expanding this working prisons programme quite dramatically.
''It's is not something Government can do alone, we need the private sector, socially responsible private partners, on board.''
High-profile business leaders including Sir Richard Branson and Marks & Spencer boss Marc Bolland called for more criminals to be given jobs in a bid to harness the talents of ''potential superstars'' in the prison population in a joint letter to the Financial Times.
Among the other signatories are Matthew Davies of Pets at Home, Steve Holliday of National Grid, Ian Sarson of Compass Group, James Reed of Reed Specialist Recruitment, Malcolm Walker of Iceland Foods and James Timpson from the family key cutting and shoe repair empire.
Mr Clarke said: ''The idea is to provide hard work in prison so that prisoners would be doing something productive, instead of doing nothing.
''Plotting a more honest future instead of planning their next crime, earning money to pay back to victims instead of dreaming of creating new victims through future crimes.''
Mr Clarke repeated his claim that a ''feral underclass'' was responsible for the rioting that spread through English cities this summer. "
Monday, October 3, 2011
Supreme Court Turns to Criminal and First Amendment Cases - NYTimes.com
Supreme Court Turns to Criminal and First Amendment Cases - NYTimes.com
"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, which has been focused in recent terms on the rights of corporations and on curbing big lawsuits, returns to the bench on Monday with a different agenda. Now, criminal justice is at the heart of the court’s docket, along with major cases on free speech and religious freedom.
“The docket seems to be changing,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told reporters at a judicial conference in August.
“A lot of big civil cases are going to arbitration,” he said. “I don’t see as many of the big civil cases.”
Still, the shift in focus toward criminal and First Amendment cases will soon be obscured if, as expected, the justices agree to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law. That case promises to be a once-in-a-generation blockbuster.
In the meantime, the justices will hear an extraordinary set of cases that together amount to a project that could overhaul almost every part of the criminal justice system.
The court will decide whether the police need a warrant to use advanced technology to track suspects, whether jails may strip-search people arrested for even the most minor offenses, whether defendants have a right to competent lawyers to help them decide whether to plead guilty, when eyewitness evidence may be used at trial, and what should happen when prosecutors withhold evidence.
“The Supreme Court has positioned itself to improve the quality of the criminal justice process from beginning to end,” said Eric M. Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University. "
"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, which has been focused in recent terms on the rights of corporations and on curbing big lawsuits, returns to the bench on Monday with a different agenda. Now, criminal justice is at the heart of the court’s docket, along with major cases on free speech and religious freedom.
“The docket seems to be changing,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told reporters at a judicial conference in August.
“A lot of big civil cases are going to arbitration,” he said. “I don’t see as many of the big civil cases.”
Still, the shift in focus toward criminal and First Amendment cases will soon be obscured if, as expected, the justices agree to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law. That case promises to be a once-in-a-generation blockbuster.
In the meantime, the justices will hear an extraordinary set of cases that together amount to a project that could overhaul almost every part of the criminal justice system.
The court will decide whether the police need a warrant to use advanced technology to track suspects, whether jails may strip-search people arrested for even the most minor offenses, whether defendants have a right to competent lawyers to help them decide whether to plead guilty, when eyewitness evidence may be used at trial, and what should happen when prosecutors withhold evidence.
“The Supreme Court has positioned itself to improve the quality of the criminal justice process from beginning to end,” said Eric M. Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)