Health care, law enforcement team up for forensics conference - KC Nursing News Story - Kansas City

Health care, law enforcement team up for forensics conference - KC Nursing News Story - Kansas City

"Meticulous evidence collection can make all the difference when cracking criminal cases. From the crime scene to the courtroom, collaboration between health care providers, first responders, law enforcement and victims’ advocates is vital for successful prosecution and for the healing process for victims to begin.

Now professionals involved with victims of violence have an opportunity to further their skills at the fifth annual “Forensic Investigations: Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Child and Elder Abuse ... From Scene to Courtroom” educational conference May 8 to 11, at the Kansas City Downtown Marriott Hotel. Sponsored by Saint Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, the conference is targeted to physicians, nurses, public health officials, law enforcement representatives, emergency medicine providers, first responders, prosecutors, criminalists, military personnel and victim’s advocates.

New this year, a pre-conference program will offer educational tracks targeted to physicians, nurses and non-medical personnel.

Track 1 for physicians will help participants gain expertise to conduct a medical forensic exam, provide expert witness testimony and understand cultural and legal controversies in care and science behind DNA/STRs as they relate to sexual assault patients. Sessions have been designed to educate physicians who are responsible for quality assurance oversight of sexual assault care.

Track 2 for nurses will prepare participants for the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE-A and SANE-P) board certification examination.

Track 3 for non-medical personnel is targeted to law enforcement, legal, child protection advocates and social workers and will help them understand the forensics of childhood injury vs. suspected abuse.

The general conference will cover emerging issues in forensic medicine, including challenges and best care practices in evidence collection, identifying corroborating evidence, maximizing crime scene photography, building a case in drug-facilitated assaults, preparing expert witness testimony, strategies for successful prosecution, deception detection, entomology in death investigations, suspect forensic exams, intimate partner violence victimization and more.

Saint Luke’s Hospital established the first private rape treatment center in the nation in 1974. The hospital is one of the few in the area with emergency room nurses who are all credentialed as Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE). SANE nurses have advanced education and clinical training in forensic examination of sexual assault victims. The program’s enhanced evidence collection process leads to more effective investigations and more successful prosecutions. Saint Luke’s Health System’s sexual assault program was one of the first in the country to expand its care to also focus on victims of domestic violence, elder and child abuse."

Justice for child victims is indeed possible - The Globe and Mail

Justice for child victims is indeed possible - The Globe and Mail

"Guilty as charged. There was high drama in The Hague and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on Wednesday as the judges of the International Criminal Court prepared to release the tribunal’s historic first judgment. The decision was unanimous. Between September, 2002, and August, 2003, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a Congolese warlord, had enlisted or kidnapped thousands of children under the age of 15 to fight in his militia. The conflict was over mineral resources in the northern district of Ituri. It is estimated that up to 60,000 civilians were killed in the violence.

Our green energy strategy Boys and girls, some as young as 7, were trained to use AK-47s and given uniforms that made them feel “proud,” as one escapee put it. They were drugged to suppress fear, then dispatched to the high-danger front lines, where they slaughtered people, mostly civilians, from the opposing ethnic group. They were personal bodyguards. Girls (who made up 40 per cent of the recruits) were gang-raped and then delegated as “wives.” Many were under 10 years of age.

The verdict marks a major milestone for the ICC, which opened its doors just nine years ago. Thomas Lubanga was the first suspect arrested under an ICC warrant, and his case was the first to be brought to trial. His conviction stems directly from the judgments at the postwar Nuremberg Trials, where the top Nazis were convicted of crimes against humanity – a law that was created by that tribunal to address the unprecedented crimes it was prosecuting.

Like Nuremberg, the ICC has now established an important legal precedent. By defining crimes against humanity, Nuremberg opened a new era in international law. With the Lubanga case, the ICC has determined that the use of child soldiers is a major war crime, a verdict that will inform the trials of future perpetrators.

The verdict is also a victory for Mr. Lubanga’s victims, who were included in the trial process, beyond being witnesses for the prosecution, for the first time in the history of international courts. I suspect this was a lesson learned from the outreach failure of the UN court for the former Yugoslavia, where Bosnian victims, watching from afar, felt ignored. Also, for the first time in history, the victims will receive reparations. Part of the court’s operational mandate was to set up a trust fund for just this purpose, although it is reportedly thin enough, given budget cuts, that some people may be disappointed.

The trial took a very long time – too long, according to its critics – and there were problems along the way. For example, in 2008, the proceedings were temporarily halted because the prosecution refused to disclose important evidence. Since this was a first case, unforeseen legal questions had to be dealt with, causing further delays. So yes, timing was an issue; on the other hand, conducting a fair trial according to international standards of due process can’t be rushed. It’s worth noting that expediency may create injustice, as in certain Allied war-crimes trials held in Germany immediately following the war. In one of these, the judges took just four hours to determine the guilt or innocence of individual perpetrators after a rapid group trial. Everyone was convicted."

No equal justice in ‘hate crime’ - The Boston Globe

No equal justice in ‘hate crime’ - The Boston Globe

"IN A New Jersey courtroom on Monday, the defense rested in the trial of Dharun Ravi, the former Rutgers freshman accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate’s intimate encounter with an older man. The roommate, Tyler Clementi, later committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge, and his death unleashed a national outcry about teenage bullying and antigay persecution.

Ravi is not charged with Clementi’s death, yet he faces a possible 10 years in prison. The crimes he is being prosecuted for? Invasion of privacy, tampering with evidence, and what the New Jersey criminal code calls “bias intimidation’’ - a hate crime. Without the bias charge, Ravi might be looking at three to five years for violating the Peeping Tom statute, using Twitter and text messages to tell people about it, and trying to cover his tracks when he got caught. But by tacking on a hate crime charge, a boorish dorm-room prank could end up putting Ravi away for the next decade of his life.

Hate crime laws - which intensify the penalty if a crime was motivated by bigotry against certain groups - have always been problematic. They amount to thought crime, cracking down on an offender with particular severity not because of his deeds, but because of his opinions. Yet since when is it the business of the state to sentence individuals to extra punishment because they hold views that are primitive or unfashionable?

In a nation dedicated to “equal justice under law’’ - the words are carved on the façade of the Supreme Court - the criminal code should not pick and choose among equal victims. Killers or armed robbers, embezzlers or Peeping Toms - criminals should be prosecuted with commitment and vigor no matter what their motivation was. It is immaterial to a victim, after all, whether his assailant is a bigot or a mafioso. It should be immaterial to our legal system, too.

New Jersey Prosecutor Julia McClure promised to prove that Ravi’s actions - which in the end amounted to little more than watching Clementi kiss another man for a few seconds and later encouraging others to watch - were not only “mean-spirited,’’ “malicious,’’ and “criminal,’’ but deliberately intended “to expose Tyler Clementi’s sexual orientation.’’ The jury will decide, of course. But will justice really be served if New Jersey succeeds in locking Ravi up for 10 years for, in essence, being an 18-year-old jerk? Yes, his webcam stunt was obnoxious and immature, the Newark Star-Ledger noted last week, but does it deserve “the same sentence we give to rapists, pedophiles and attempted murderers?’’

Much of what people “know’’ about this case turns out not to be true. Clementi wasn’t outed by his roommate’s actions, for example - he had come out before starting college and had already attended a meeting of the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian Alliance at Rutgers. There was no video of him having sex, let alone one posted on the Internet. Prosecution witnesses testified that Ravi was neither an antigay bigot nor motivated by hatred of his roommate. And even Clementi, discussing the incident with a friend from high school the next day, assumed that Ravi had been “just curious.’’

But even if the worst rumors were true, that wouldn’t change the great flaw of hate crime prosecutions. The criminal justice system should not concern itself with bad thoughts and pernicious attitudes, but with bad behavior and pernicious harms. The man who breaks your jaw because you are black or gay or Hindu should be punished as severely as the man who breaks it because you are socialist or a Yankees fan - or just because he’s a thug seeking a thrill."

NYS lawmakers disagree on fate of criminal justice bills

NYS lawmakers disagree on fate of criminal justice bills

"March 12 (Reuters) - New York state lawmakers are at odds over a pair of criminal justice proposals by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, including a bill that would give judges more flexibility to sentence probationers and a measure that would allow for the confiscation of money or property used in a crime.

The Democrat-dominated Assembly and the Senate, where Republicans hold a one-seat majority, released dueling state budget proposals on Monday. The proposals came two months after Cuomo released his tentative budget to lawmakers.

In its budget, the Assembly approved a bill that would give judges the discretion to mete out shorter sentences for probationers, while rejecting a provision that would allow police to detain alleged probation violators without a warrant for up to 48 hours. The Senate rejected the entire probation proposal.

Lawmakers also disagreed about the fate of a bill that would enable prosecutors during sentencing to seek the forfeiture of money or property used in a crime.

Currently, anyone convicted of a misdemeanor may keep the proceeds of a crime. Prosecutors must commence separate civil forfeiture proceedings against felony offenders.

Under Cuomo's proposal, prosecutors could ask a sentencing court to order the forfeiture of any property related to a crime. Many defense attorneys have opposed the measure, claiming it would ensnare innocent people."

Criminal justice committee moves forward on domestic violence legislation — State — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

Criminal justice committee moves forward on domestic violence legislation — State — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

"AUGUSTA, Maine — The Legislature’s criminal justice committee late last week unanimously approved a bill that would be create a risk assessment tool for law enforcement officers in domestic violence cases.

Sponsored by House Minority Leader Emily Cain, D-Orono, LD 1711 is one of several domestic violence-related bills that is up for debate this session.
Cain’s bill, which has bipartisan support in the Legislature and support from Gov. Paul LePage, would require officers to employ risk assessment tools in domestic abuse cases and then submit those results to a bail commissioner and district attorney.

Although officers could begin using risk assessment as soon as the law was adopted, it would not be mandated until January 2014.
“The bill will help better identify those who are likely to commit acts of domestic violence again and stop them before they can,” Cain said. “Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet to preventing domestic violence

“While strengthening law enforcement tools is critical, we must also work together on comprehensive domestic violence prevention resources and treatment for battered women and their families.”
Another bill, LD 1841, An Act to Ensure Funding for the Victims Compensation Fund, also was approved by the criminal justice committee last week, but not in unanimous fashion.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kenneth Fredette, R-Newport, said he was stunned to see only one Democrat on the committee — Rep. Anna Blodgett of Augusta — voted for it."

DOJ Director on Violence Against Women in the United States - Forbes

DOJ Director on Violence Against Women in the United States - Forbes

"In one of the most in-depth discussions to date on violence against women in the United States, and to coincide with International Women’s Day, I interviewed Susan B. Carbon, Director of the United States Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW).


Ms. Carbon was nominated to this position by President Barack Obama on October 1, 2009 and confirmed by the United States Senate on February 11, 2010. As Director, she serves as the liaison between the Department of Justice and federal, state, tribal, and international governments on crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking. In this role, she is responsible for developing the Department’s legal and policy positions regarding the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act and oversees an annual budget of nearly $400 million.

Rahim Kanani: How would you characterize the landscape of justice today with respect to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking here in the United States?

Susan Carbon: Although violent crime has decreased nationwide, the crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking still devastate the lives of too many women, men, youth, and children. Since then-Senator Biden brought national attention to crimes of violence against women in hearings in 1990, we have learned more about their shocking prevalence. One in every four women and one in every seven men have experienced severe physical violence by a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend.[1] Stalkers victimize approximately 5.2 million women and 1.4 million men each year in the U.S, with domestic violence-related stalking the most common type of stalking and often the most dangerous.[2] One in ten 9th-12th grade students were physically hurt on purpose by a boyfriend or girlfriend in 2009 alone.[3] One in five women and one in 71 men have been raped in their lifetimes, and nearly 1.3 million women in the U.S. are raped every year.[4] The statistics are sobering – even more so with our understanding that these types of crimes are often the most underreported.[5] Many victims suffer in silence without confiding in family and friends, much less reaching out for help from hospitals, rape crisis centers, shelters, or even the police.

Given the continued prevalence of the crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking and the serious ongoing consequences to victims, their children and our communities, the grant programs authorized under VAWA are an investment in our nation’s future. Congress recognized the severity of these serious crimes and our need for a national strategy with the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. As a result of this comprehensive legislative package aimed at eradicating violence against women, we have witnessed a paradigm shift in how the issue of violence against women is addressed in the United States, and countless lives have been positively impacted. VAWA has led to significant improvements in the criminal and civil justice systems, encouraging victims to file complaints, improving evidence collection, and increasing access to protection orders.[6]Victims now can reach out for help, call the police, find 24-hour emergency services, and take steps to leave abusive relationships. Domestic violence is no longer considered a private family matter, and is being addressed as a serious public health and criminal justice issue. Stalking is recognized as a dangerous crime, not just something that happens to celebrities. Schools are developing polices to respond to teen dating violence. The prevalence and devastation of sexual assault is finally being recognized. Thousands of women, men, and children have received life-saving services from rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters. And I’m proud to say we’re engaging men as leaders in ending violence against women. All this adds up. By reducing crimes and the subsequent costs to the criminal justice and health care systems, VAWA has realized cost savings. A 2002 study found that VAWA saved an estimated $12.6 billion in net averted social costs in its first six years alone.[7] Even small investments in VAWA have been shown to make a difference on the ground.[8]

One of the signature achievements of VAWA, reauthorized in 2000 and 2005, is the development of the concept of a coordinated community response. VAWA-funded projects have an impact that goes well beyond the number of victims served, professionals trained, or arrests made. VAWA encourages jurisdictions to bring together stakeholders from diverse backgrounds to share information and to use their distinct roles to improve community responses to violence against women. This mechanism allows these programs to serve as models for other agencies in their jurisdictions. This not only improves the quality of victim services and the criminal and civil justice response, it often changes the attitudes of the community as a whole."

Criminal Justice System: Is Plea Bargain Desirable?

Criminal Justice System: Is Plea Bargain Desirable?

"The controversy trailing the concept of Plea-bargain in the nation’s criminal justice system is not likely to end soon. Those who are kicking against it claim that it is unknown to our legal system. However, those in support of it insist it has always been with us. But what exactly is it all about?


According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, plea bargain is the process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case, subject to court approval.

It involves the defendant entering guilty plea to a lesser offence or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment, in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver charge.

Specifically, there are three kinds of plea bargain: the ‘Charge Bargain’ which entails the prosecutor allowing the accused to plead guilty to a lesser charge or to some of the charges preferred against him or her, which typically occur or negotiated at the pre-trial phase.

A ‘Sentence Bargain’ is offered when the defendant is told in advance what the sentence will be if he or she pleads guilty.
The third but rare type is ‘Fact Bargain’ which involves the defendant admitting to certain facts in return for agreement for the prosecutor not to introduce certain facts into evidence before the trial court.
Nevertheless, in the Nigerian milieu, though plea bargaining is not expressly recognized in our criminal justice system, however, what was hitherto practiced by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, is a process wherein the accused person changes his plea of ‘not guilty’ to ‘guilty’ after which the prosecution offers such person some concession by way of amending his charge.
Though it was white collar crime that brought the concept of plea bargaining into our public consciousness, controversy has continued to trail its origin and applicability vis-à-vis the administration of justice in the country.

One of the vocal voices against the plea bargain system is the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, who had on November 14, last year, described plea bargain as “a novel concept of dubious origin.”
The debate resurrected again on Monday, as the CJN, in a paper he presented at a 2-days capacity building workshop for judicial correspondents in Abuja, maintained that the concept was “never part of the history of our legal system- at least until it was surreptitiously smuggled into our statutory laws with the creation of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.”
Justice Musdapher stated this on a day both the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, and the National Human Rights Commission, NHRC, challenged his viewpoint on the issue, saying his “claim that the plea-bargain system was unknown to the Nigerian law did not fairly reflect the state of the law.”
Justifying his decision to abolish the system which he said was obnoxious, the CJN argued: “when I described the concept as of ‘dubious origin’, I was not referring to the original raison-d’être or the juridical motive behind its conception way back either in the United States or England in the early 19th Century, I was referring to the sneaky motive-if not behind its introduction into our legal system, then evidently in its fraudulent application."

What worries critics about omnibus crime bill - Canada - CBC News

What worries critics about omnibus crime bill - Canada - CBC News

"The Conservatives are expected to pass their controversial omnibus crime bill this week, the first in a series of anti-crime measures the majority government of Stephen Harper has vowed to introduce.

Bill C-10, formerly known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, encompasses several different pieces of legislation.

Opposition parties, professionals working within the corrections and justice systems, the Canadian Bar Association and various other interest groups have raised wide-ranging concerns about the legislation. Below is an overview of some of their objections.

Mandatory minimums
By far the most criticized aspect of the bill is the introduction of mandatory jail sentences for certain crimes, including drug trafficking, sex crimes, child exploitation and some violent offences. Opponents of the measures have argued that this type of sentencing has been tried in other jurisdictions, most notably in the U.S., and has created more problems than it has solved.

Critics say that coupled with other changes in the bill, such as increases in the maximum sentences handed down to some drug offenders and sexual predators and elimination of conditional sentences in some cases, mandatory minimums will burden Canada's prison and court systems in ways that are unfeasible, untenable and have little benefit.

In particular, they argue that mandatory minimum sentences will:

Increase the costs of prosecuting and incarcerating offenders and leave fewer funds for rehabilitation programs.
Lead to overcrowding in prisons.
Remove judges' discretion to tailor sentences to the specifics of a particular case and offender and force them to apply blanket, one-size-fits-all sentences regardless of circumstances.
Limit the use of alternate sentencing measures of the type currently applied to aboriginal offenders.
Disproportionately punish small-time drug offenders and have limited effect on the drug producers, organized crime bosses and serious drug traffickers the government says it wants to target.
Have little rehabilitative effect on offenders and rather leave them more, not less, likely to re-offend. Critics point to numerous studies showing harsher incarceration laws do not have a deterrent effect on criminals or lower crime rates.
Violate provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and open up the government to legal challenges on grounds that the sentencing rules violate certain rights that offenders have under the Charter, such as the right to liberty, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
Fewer conditional sentences
The legislation will eliminate conditional sentences, those served in the community or under house arrest, for a range of crimes, including sexual assault, manslaughter, arson, drug trafficking, kidnapping and fraud or theft over $5,000. It will also eliminate double credit for time already served.

Critics say these changes will:

Cost the federal and provincial justice and corrections systems millions of additional dollars a year. The parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, has estimated that the average cost per offender will rise from approximately $2,600 to $41,000 as a consequence of the elimination of conditional sentences.
Lead to more trials as those accused of crimes will be less likely to plead guilty if they know there is no chance they will get a conditional sentence and will be more likely to take their chances on a trial. Some have predicted this will lead to greater backlogs in an already backlogged court system.
Result in more parole hearings. Page's analysis predicted that with the increase in the number of incarcerations, there will be more offenders coming up for parole, which will increase costs for federal and provincial parole review boards. A single review by the Parole Board of Canada costs an estimated $4,289, Page estimated.
Harsher sentences for young offenders
Changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act will impose tougher sentences for violent and repeat young offenders, make it easier to keep such offenders in custody prior to trial and expand the definition of what is considered a "violent offence" to include "creating a substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm" rather than just causing, attempting to cause or threatening to cause bodily harm.

The new legislation will also require the Crown to consider adult sentences for offenders convicted of "serious violent offences" and require judges to consider lifting the publication ban on names of offenders convicted of "violent offences" even when they have been given youth sentences."

Prison overcrowding 'harms rehabilitation' / Britain / Home - Morning Star

Prison overcrowding 'harms rehabilitation' / Britain / Home - Morning Star

"The skyrocketing prison population is undermining inmates' rehabilitation and harming programmess set up to cut reoffending rates, criminal justice campaigners warned yesterday.

The Criminal Justice Alliance, a coalition of more than 60 organisations, has called for urgent action following evidence of what it described as "the corrosive impact" of overcrowding on the work of charities and organisations which provide rehabilitation in custody and services on release.

In its latest report, the alliance said that longer waiting lists for courses aimed at cutting reoffending, sudden transfers to other prisons, more prison lockdowns, greater levels of distress among vulnerable prisoners and widespread doubling in cells designed for one person were having a devastating effect.

The continued use of custodial sentences for parents of children who are truant from school, fine defaulters and people with mental health problems was exacerbating the problem and a waste of scarce resources, the alliance argued.

Criminal Justice Alliance director Vicki Helyar-Cardwell said: "Overcrowding has all too often become an accepted part of life in prison, but while the system is just about coping, it struggles to meet the challenges of unexpected surge, such as those that followed the riots last year.

"Our members report that overcrowding extracts a heavy price from prisoners, prison staff and voluntary sector working to cut reoffending and ultimately harms communities to which ex-prisoners will return."

Building new jails would not solve the problem, she said.

"Instead more should be done to divert minor and non-violent offenders out of prison into measures which enable them to make amends for their wrongdoing and better address the problems which lie behind their offending."

Former chief inspector of prisons and crossbench peer Lord Ramsbotham said: "Prisons have the same role in the criminal justice system as hospitals in the NHS - they are the acute part to which people should not be sent unless they need the treatment that only they can provide."

Justice reinvestment: Prison reform group has great intentions, but the state's problems require results | PennLive.com

Justice reinvestment: Prison reform group has great intentions, but the state's problems require results | PennLive.com

"Every governor comes into office promising to find ways to cut costs in the corrections system.

Considering that it is one of the biggest slices of the state budget pie — and has been for years — it is no wonder.

Too many times, however, the focus is on the prisons and not nearly enough on those most likely to end up getting locked up or on the inmates who can get out of prison after serving a minimum sentence but don’t.

Looking at the bigger picture is the goal of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, a project initiated by Gov. Tom Corbett that has enlisted public officials from the administration, Legislature, other offices and the justice system. The panel has the ambitious goal of finding ways to bring down crime, lower the cost of the corrections system and decrease the number of repeat offenders who end up behind bars. It hopes to have a proposal by May.

The project is part of a national movement and is funded by the U.S. Justice Department and the Pew Center on the States. The Council on State Governments Justice Center also is involved.

The core of the problem in Pennsylvania is clear: Most crime statistics are falling, yet our prisons — from county to state penitentiaries — continue to be packed with inmates. It was to the point that, until recently, the commonwealth was shipping prisoners to other states because we had no empty beds.

Criminals who repeatedly enter the criminal justice system also are a big problem. From 2000 to 2010, the prison population in the state increased by 41 percent, from 11,551 to 16,404.

Despite the bulging prisons, over the last six years fewer people have been leaving prison when they reach their minimum sentence requirement. That number has dropped from 43 percent to 26 percent."