April 2010 Archives

On April 29, a 40 year old man came into a preschool classroom and injured 5 preschoolers with a hammer. Right after this, he set himself on fire, killing himself. Officials think this is a copycat attack because there have been several similar attacks on young children. The previous day, a man went into a kindergarten classroom and stabbed 29 students. The day before this incident, a man injured 18 children in a different primary school. Luckily, no one died.  Last month, a former doctor, Zheng Minsheng, went into a classroom and stabbed 8 children to death and wounded 5 others. He was executed on April 27. Why would these men want to harm innocent children? Before Minsheng was executed, he said that he committed these murders because of his "failures in his romantic life and in society". It seems that he had some psychologically issues to take out his failures on young children. The other men who carried out similar attacks most likely had some psychological issues as well. They may have had depression or at worst, antisocial personality disorder, or something similar.

The trauma that students, parents, and children had to go through will need some counseling. The article states that schools have brought in people to help with these issues. The students will definitely suffer from some psychological problems but hopefully they can be resolved early on to prohibit further issues.

Here is the article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/04/30/china.school.attack/index.html?iref=allsearch

This topic is strangely hard to research. There are many individuals in the United States as well as others that believe the Disney Corporation is one of the most evil corporations in the world. Why? That is the hard part to research. Whether we talk about their media branch (Disney Channel, Disney Records, or Walt Disney Studios), their theme parks, or their toy lines, Disney has the best lawyers to represent the "good" of the company. There are many rumors which are difficult to prove or disprove. Here's some for you to judge. The main focus will be the theme parks in this discussion, as that is the primary interaction between the people and the corporation. At this link, incidents are listed based on the attraction. As Disney owns a known 40 square mile tract of land and more land in their reserves within Florida, they have their own internal security force, prison, EMT's, fire fighters, utilities, and so fourth. When an incident occurs in Disneyland, the first responders (IE, their security) categorize each incident into 4 distinct categories: 1) Guest Negligence via non-compliance, 2) Guest's negligence of their own health, 3) Act of God (Nobody's Fault), 4) Negligence on the park's behalf.

Here's the questions that aren't easy to find. How many lawsuits are filed against Disney's Theme Park branch per year? How many of those are losses in Disney's books? Should Disney's first responders be pay-rolled by Disney itself or government funded employees mandated by the state?

Granted, millions travel through Disney Theme Parks every year and come back with good experiences (other than long lines and overpriced goods). However, how safe are we to know that even the emergency staff will side with Disney if something was to happen? This brings me more fear than the tower of terror does.

This article caught my eye, because as most of of think, when our economy is in a recession crime goes up.  However, as this artcile points out that is a meth.  Crime tends to follow whatever pattern it is currently in regardless of a recession.  This article provides some reasons why in the long run crime is going down and reasons why within this recession.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201004/the-crimeless-recession

This article is about a mother that gave birth to triplets. During the difficult birth she experienced severe brain damage that has caused her not to be able to raise them. She last seen her children in October of 2007 when they were toddlers, they will turn 4 on June 20th. I dont think that there is a question about if she is able to see her kids. Even if she is not able to fully interact with them. They are her kids and this unfortunate event should not keep her from seeing them. The family of the mother are fighting for her to be able to see her children. The family says she communicates through blinking. Blinking once means yes and not blinking means no. The family filed divorce papers on her behalf, and the husbands says that it is not in the childrens best interest to see their mother. I dont understand this at all... Why would it not be in the best interest for them, no matter what she is their mother! It dont make sense to me how people can be so greedy and selfish sometimes. The court proceding is scheduled for May 13, no matter the outcome, it is evident that this case will serve as a precedent for similiar cases in the future.

 http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/22/california.triplets.visitation.lawsuits/index.html

 

This article explains that the US Army plans to seek the death penalty in the case of Major Nidal Hasan. It sounds like the Army never contemplated the decision to seek the death penalty. Nidal shot and killed 13 people at the Fort Hood army base last November. This is just another case in which people can argue if the death penalty is moral. I think that in this case more people may be able to except it. In my opinion this case is so extreme that I dont think I can argue with it. I am not an outright advocate for the death penalty by any means but I think when the crime is of this magnitude, it is hard for me to say i dont think that he deserves it. He obviously does have some issues but at the same time it was totally unexceptible what he did. Those soldiers and people that were killed sacrificed a lot to defend their country and they were killed prematurely by a guy that it seems was having a bad day. Two wrongs never make a right and it is never right to kill another human being but in a way I think that this guy deserves what ever punishment that he is given.  

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/fort.hood.death.penalty/index.html

When doing my "day in the life" essay I found out just what it takes to be a court reporter. I found it extremely interesting that in order to be a court reporter you had to be able to pass a test in which you need to type 225 per minute as well as have 97% accuarcy. I tried my hand at this at

http://www.typingtest.com/

This will tell you how fast you can type as well as your accuracy to give a score. (If you don't score 225 wpm don't let this crush your dreams people who still pick at the keys. Yeah, you know who you are.)

When interviewing my cousin I couldn't help but wonder if this job will be in high demand over the next couple of years. I wondered if technology could possibly take over the need for a person to be typing. However, this article would give much different information. It explains that court reporters are indeed the "guardians of the record".

http://www.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2009/12/28/court-reporter.html

The U.S. news states that this is actually one of the 50 best careers of 2010. I found this article to be extremely informative. I also found out that on average a court reporter makes almost $50,000 a year. This field is also predicted to grow more than 18 percent between 2008 and 2018. I would say that looking into this career would be a definite option and looks like the future is promising for this job as well.  

When I was in a social psychology class, we learned about the bystander effect. This is simply the fact that when with others, individuals act differently than they would alone. A huge case involving the bystander effect is the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964. Kitty was 21 years old living in New York City. She managed a bar close to her apartment. One night, she was walking home late from work. Right outside her apartment, she was attacked and stabbed twice. She screamed but no one came to help her. The perpetrator left but returned 10 or so minutes later to find Kitty lying, barely conscious, by the back door. He continued to stab her, rape her, steal her money, and then leave. One man saw the first attack on Kitty and didn't call the police. Quite a few of the other tenants in the apartment building heard Kitty's screams but did not call the police either. This is the reason why this case is so well known. Many of the apartment tenants said they didn't want to get involved.

Four years after the murder, two psychologists did a study to try and figure out what the effect of bystanders had on people. They placed people in one room and were to speak through a microphone to the person in another room. The person on the other side, the confederate of the experiment, started to pretend he was having a seizure and even mumbled the words about dying. The psychologists found that the more people that were present, the longer it took for someone to act for respond to the person having the seizure. The people who didn't report the seizure said that the reason they didn't report it was because they wanted to abide by the rules of the experiment by staying in the other room apart from the confederate.

I think the bystander effect relates a lot to psychology and law. If someone is witnessing a crime, it's way less likely they'll report it if other people are present. It makes me wonder though if the bystanders being strangers has an affect on if people act or not. If I was surrounded by my friends, I think I would almost always react to someone getting murdered or having a seizure. People care a lot about what others think and sadly, this can have some negative effects.

This website is where I read about the bystander effect.

In my Psychology of Gender Differences class I have learned many of the differences between men and women. One big difference in their behavior is in the way men and women communicate. Women, for instance, engage in more positive social behavior (agreement) and men engage in more task orientated behavior and negative behavior (disagreeing). Men's language also tends to be more direct, succinct, and instrumental. Women's language on the other hand is more indirect, elaborative, and affective. I was interested to see how the way men and women's ways of communicating would affect certain occupations in our law system. I found an extremely interesting article on men and women's communication styles amongst lawyers. Here is what I found:

Although the gender inequality in professions in the law system seems to be becoming less prevalent, women still might struggle to be as effective communicators and negotiators as men. This article explains that women need to understand one thing, that men and women are different and have different ways of communicating, and therefore negotiating. Like a sports team, you must use your own team's strengths to win. Women and men must recognize their strengths and weaknesses and then build ways to negotiate properly with people.

 "Studies have shown that when men are negotiating against women, they tend to play hardball or tend to be more aggressive and concede less than they would if they were negotiating against a man.  I think it is important to keep that in mind so that you understand before you go into a negotiation what the ground rules are."

Women also tend to have a want to be liked by the person she is negotiating with. This could possibly limit them to less aggressive styles of negotiating. She may be afraid as being seen as too aggressive if she were more direct. Women must instead use their strengths instead. Women ask more questions, and work to get to know the person better. This in turn could help this person self-disclose more and then the negotiator could learn to deal with their personality better.

Do you think women can use these strengths to be great negotiators? Or do you think men will always be more aggressive in nature, and therefore better at negotiating with people?

 

http://litigationconferences.com/?p=4260

The UCMJ is the military law. For the most part, it spells out what is considered a crime, the military legal system, acceptable punishments, and so fourth. When a crime is being referred to or for the purposes of documentation, they are marked as Articles. For example, Article 86 is AWOL (Absent Without Leave), Article 112 is Drunk on Duty, and so on. The two major sections for military crimes are Punitive Charges and Non-Judicial Punishment Charges.

However, unlike civilian law, there are Articles that exist in which aren't crimes outside the military. For example, Article 125 - Sodomy. Simply put, the act itself is a crime, whether it is consensual or not. Article 134:24 - Gambling with a Subordinate. In short, you can only gamble with people of the same rank. There are many strange Articles in which limits the freedoms of service members for both good and the strange. The second link is a website that spells out some of the court-martial offenses.

Imagine being a single soldier who had consensual sex in one of the two soldier's rooms. Guess what? You've violated the UCMJ in one way or another, which states the door must be open when a member of the opposite gender is present. If you've done this, then you've violated Article 134-29 (Indecent Acts with Another). Let's take a common situation. Imagine having some time off, and getting a little sun. You've spent a little too much time outside and were sunburned. Congratulations! You've violated Article 108 - Damage or Destruction of Government Property. In many cases, being guilty of any of the articles can include any or all of the following: Loss of rank, loss of pay, loss of leave, loss of responsibility, restrictions on locations, dishonorable discharge, and/or prison time.

Psychologically, many soldiers have fears of the UCMJ. Granted, there are many Articles that are violated, but swept underneath the rug. It all depends on a soldier's chain of command (their bosses all the way up to the President) if they wish to pursue these charges or not. Some believe that the chain of command has a personal grudge against them, which has been proven in the past. There is an Article for this as well. Some chains of commands are extremely "by the book" and will punish soldiers under the UCMJ for crimes that don't exist outside the military. Do soldiers really have to fear their law more than the combat zone they could be in? Does the UCMJ protect the soldier against others, or does it create more control for the government?

 

UCMJ:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

 

Punitive Charges of the UCMJ:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm.htm

CASA Volunteers: Become a Hero for a Child in Need

            After interviewing my mother for the "Interview a Professional" project I became much more familiar with the CASA program and decided to share it with the group as it may be something many might be interested in.

http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5301309/k.9D58/Volunteering.htm

            Above is the main website for the organization.  I'll include the basics here, along with why I feel it is a great example of the mix of psychology and law that lies at the heart of this course.

            CASA stands for Court Appointed Special Advocate, and is a volunteer based program with the following basic mission:

"CASA is the only volunteer organization that empowers everyday citizens as officers of the court. In an overburdened social welfare system, abused and neglected children often slip through the cracks among hundreds of current cases. CASA volunteers change that. Appointed by judges, CASA volunteers typically handle just one case at a time--and commit to staying on that case until the child is placed in a safe, permanent home. While others may come and go, CASA volunteers provide that one constant that children need in order to thrive."

When Nintendo introduced its new Wii console it was offering users a new way to emit gaming behaviors.  It was literally changing the way people experienced playing a video game.  This brought with it numerous benefits including remarkable sales figures for the Nintendo company.  In no time at all there were wii consoles at bars and restaurants, wii bowling leagues, parents and grandparents were buying wii's, and not as presents, to use for themselves.

I found this to be very interesting because I am still up in the air about what I think about how pedophiles should be treated.  I obviously think it is a crime and they should be locked up, but while reading the article they interviewed a man who had committed his crime while a teen, and it still follows him around as an adult.  Which, to me if you've served your time and you were a teen it should be eliminated from your record but you should have to do mandatory check in with a probation officer, mandatory counseling, and still not be able to live with in a certain radius of children. 
This article gave me a bit more incite of how it is to be in the position of someone who has served their time and their life will not and can not ever go back to how it was.

http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=12002719

My sister in-law runs a daycare center and I worked there in the summer about three years ago which would make it 2007.  She had gotten a new family a girl, Allie, who was seven at the time and her brother Ryan who was five.  At first Allie seemed like a normal seven year old girl, but as the summer went on I noticed some things about her that were weird.  Some of these things were that she didn't like to be touched by any of the other boys at daycare.  She wouldn't really freak out, but if another daycare boy sat down beside her she would get up really fast and move.  If a daycare boy touched her, she would sometimes yell or say don't touch me.  This was the first sign that something was wrong.  Then I noticed that when my brother came home during his lunch break, Allie would be very clingy with me or my sister in-law, Michelle.  She was also very quiet child, which I just thought she was shy.  She did play really good with the other girls at daycare though.  Then I noticed that Allie didn't like to go to the bathroom or go into the bathroom.  Different times I saw Allie go into the bathroom and then I would see my sister in-law standing by the door with it shut, but she hand was inside the door.

I finally asked my sister in-law about Allie and she told me that Allie had been sexually abused since she was about one year old until she was almost five.  Allie, along with three other girls was abused by the babysitter's husband.  I learned that when Allie was round 20 months old the husband got a new job and started coming home during his lunch break.  According to the abused girls the husband would pick one of the four girls each day and abuse them in the bathroom.  He threatened them repeatedly so they wouldn't tell.   Finally one of the girls said something to their mom about the abuse and that's when everything came out.  When Allie was asked about the abuse, she finally told about it. 

According to the babysitter, she told police she had no idea that her husband was abusing these girls during his lunch break.  I find this very hard to believe that she wouldn't notice a child wasn't around.  I always noticed when a child got out of my site and I would go look for him/her right away.  I don't know all the details about the case, but I do know that the husband was arrested and convicted and the last time I know, no charges were brought against the babysitter. 

What happened to Allie just makes me stick.  She will have problems her entire life and that man took her childhood away from her.  I glad that he is in jail and I hope that the wife will be put in jail too.  I do know that Allie is doing better.  She has been in therapy since the abuse was found out.  Today she is in the fourth grade and is making great improvement.  She can know go to the bathroom by herself and she is getting better at being around boys.  She still had a long road ahead of her.  Just to see Allie somewhere you would never know that she was abused all of those years.   

http://footprintsattheriversedge.blogspot.com/2010/02/012210-jon-lacina-21-ames-ia.html

As some of you may have heard in the past months, a student at ISU named Jon Lacina has been missing since January 22, 2010 in Ames, Iowa. He was last seen at about 9:30 that night and no traces of him were found. The police did many different investigations to try and find him, but nothing helped. There were also helicopter and local waterway searches, but still nothing was ever found.

On April 14th, Jon's body was found by an ISU police officer in the Dairy Pavilion, owned by ISU, about a mile from Central Campus. They forensics department is still looking to figure out how he died and they won't know for weeks.

This tragic circumstance is something that police and other officials should not dismiss. Lacina's family and friends knew him to be a smart, loving person with a love for music and art and he was not a person who takes risks. All of these aspects of his life make you wonder what really happened, since he seemed to be a well-rounded young man. It also makes me wonder why the police didn't check the dairy barns more extensively, since it is in a more remote location but still in range of campus. Another thing that bothers me is what if he was killed? How would we ever find the killer? Is that person still in Ames walking around campus? It is a frightening feeling and now that the police found the body, the investigators should be doing lots more research to find out what really happened.

While working on a project for my portfolio, I ran across this site.  There are numerous things located on this site, but I found one thing particularly interesting.  Inmates can post profiles about themselves and request people like us to write back, essentially establishing a pen pal relationship. 

I ran across this site when looking for ways to reduce the development and impact of institutionalization.  I think this is a great way to reduce institutionalization by allowing the inmates to be in contact with the outside world through emails and/or handwritten letters.  Basically, willing prisoners post a profile where they include a picture (some profiles are without pictures) as well as information about themselves and who they are interested in talking to.  Had I not known these profiles were that of prisoners, I would have never guessed they were incarcerated because they seem very friendly and look to engage in meaningful and fulfilling conversations.

The last paragraph on the site says it best:

"Almost every inmate in prison today will be returning to society at some point. If you will invest some of your time and compassion, together we can help insure that not only will many of them return to us as productive members of society, but they will not return to the prison system again and again and again, as has become the trend in recent years. Together we will reduce recidivism."

 I encourage you all to check out this website and consider writing to a prisoner.  I think it could be an interesting and educational experience!   

The case I'm going to discuss is several years old but I found it very interesting and relevant to psychology and law. In 1992, a hunter found the body of a decomposing woman while hunting. After the police found out that the dead woman had been a prostitute, it led them to believe that a possible suspect was Thomas Huskey, a man known for bringing woman to the area. Huskey had a reputation for taking women, tying them up behind the zoo, beating them, and then having sex with them.

About a week after the first body was found, police searching the area found three more dead women. Huskey was arrested and confessed, on tape, to all four murders. During the confession, Huskey changed his voice and expressions and said that he was now "Kyle". Apparently, "Kyle" was the one who killed the women, not Thomas. After "Kyle" emerged, "Philip Daxx", a British man, surfaced. This lead investigators to believe that Huskey had multiple personality disorder.

After 6 years had passed, the trial finally began. Huskey plead not guilty by insanity. The defense psychologist said that Huskey suffered from multiple personality disorder, however, the prosecution psychologist said that Huskey simply created these personalities to manipulate the court. During the course of the trial, the cellmate of Huskey, testified that Huskey had read Sybil and was going to try to make it seem like he had multiple personality disorder to avoid the death penalty. Huskey's mother also agreed that he did not have this disorder. To further the case against Huskey, the prosecution noted that he gave specific details about the crime while he was Tom but if he really did have multiple personality disorder, he would have no recollection of these memories, since they belong to "Kyle".

After the jury deliberated for quite some time, they still had not come to a unanimous decision. The judge declared a mistrial. Huskey was to be tried again in 2002 but he asked for a lawyer during his confession, which was then ruled inadmissible. Huskey is currently in prison for 44 years for previous rape charges.

On another website, I found that the murder charges against Huskey were dropped due to detective errors. He is still in jail for the rape charges mentioned earlier.

Psychology is obviously present here. Because multiple personality disorder is so rare, it probably wasn't Huskey's  best idea to pretend he had it. Any personality disorder is severe and it's likely that Huskey may have had some other form of one. Although he wasn't proven guilty, it seems pretty possible that he did commit the four murders. I'm glad that he's at least in jail for the rape crimes he committed so that he can't go out and murder more innocent women.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/multiples/index.html 

After taking this class and learning about different areas of study related to psychology and law, I think it would be beneficial for people to know the wide variety of jobs that incorporate both psychology and law. I was looking around the web, and one of the best sites I found was actually put out by the American Psychology Association. This first website gives an overview of what psychology and law is. Next, it talks about the different educational requirements and training needed to specialize in various jobs. Some of the jobs it talks about range from developmental psychology to forensic psychology. Finally, this website gives an insight to actual people who are perusing jobs in psych and law related work areas.

http://www.ap-ls.org/students/Careers.php#

Another website I found that I thought was very informative and interesting was particularly about forensic psychology.  I really liked this website because it was very easy to navigate to and gave information that is relevant to someone who is actually looking into going into this job career, as well as someone who is just looking to get some basic background information. This website is put online by West Chester University.  

http://www.wcupa.edu/_academics/sch_cas.psy/career_paths/forensic/career08.htm

Finally, I thought that the job of Forensic Serology/DNA criminalists was also very interesting. This website gives basic information on what exactly forensic science is. Also, it gives a good description of the basic requirements needed to perform at this job successfully.

http://www.forensiccareers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=31

There are many jobs out there that people with either psychology or law degrees can get involved with. Psychology has expanded in today's world, and just because you get psychology degree doesn't mean you will be counseling people the rest of your life. There are so many job opportunities available out there. People need to realize what interests them, and surely they will find a job that relates to psychology!

http://www.forensiccareers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=31

 

 

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/finding-untainted-jurors-in-the-age-of-the-internet/

I found an article that was extremely interesting to me.  When taking into the account of having an unbiased judgement in court it's difficult to do with how media coverage is so wide spread, esepcially through the internet.  They talked about how people would ask for change of venue when they were going to trial because the community knew too much about the case and they wanted a more fair trial, well that all sounds good for them to get a new venue, but in reality all you have to do is type in a person on google and you can get all sorts of information.  This article made me think of the Mark Becker case, because how could anyone in the state of Iowa not have some sort of bias about him especially since Ed Thomas was a very well known man.

I was watching the show Forensic Files on night and I saw this case about a woman killing her husband. I found this case to be relevant to this class because of what she did when she murdered him.
The night that she decided to kill him, she called the police in a panic claiming someone had broken in to their home and was robbing it. During the 911 call she was crying and at one point (if you watch the video links below) she yelled at the him to not go upstairs to her children. During the call she said he had a gun, and by this point she was screaming to not shot her husband, and then fires were shot.
The police rushed to the Bosley's home and the house looked like it had been ripped apart like that from a break in. The window to the kitchen door was broken and the cabinets were all opened.
The police search went on for the man that broke in and killed Mr. Bosley. But it soon became focused on the evidence that was around the home. The window that was broken was found to have been broken from the inside instead of the outside. And another things just weren't adding up.
Also, Amy didn't think about her two young children who were still in the home. They became witnesses to what actually happened in the home that night. Which brings about the topic or children as witnesses in criminal cases and how much they know what is really going on.
This is an interesting case and the video provided below isn't from Forensic Files but from another show called Snapped.





Part #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkwaROqDNQ0&feature=related

Part #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZJCXMjvS_8&feature=related

Part #3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em2da4vnGjU&feature=related

Also, here is an article about the case as well:

http://www.wlwt.com/news/4540332/detail.html

"April 15, 2010

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court takes up a question near and dear to digitally proficient texters: whether their personal messages are private when transmitted over an electronic device supplied by an employer."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125998549

     Most of us understand that when your employer gives you something to use, its still theirs, and a certain level of "acceptable behavior" comes with the privilege of using said allowance.  HOWEVER, we have all heard about people downloading explicit material at work, engaging in illicit chat room conversations on company laptops, and making long-distance phone calls to your family in Japan on the company's dime.  

     With this context in mind, the article linked above describes a situation involving cellular phones distributed to police officers in Ontario, California.  When the phones were distributed to police officers, the lieutenant responsible for the equipment informed the users that the message content was private, and officers would be required to pay out of pocket for messages exceeding the 25,000 character limit per month.  

     A problem arose however, when officers DID exceed the limit, and the lieutenant described feeling like a "bill collector".  He grew weary of this responsibility, and when he requested transcripts of the message content being transmitted by his officers, he was surprised to find explicit language being used between one particular officer, his estranged ex-wife, and another police officer.  

     I circle back now to my first point.  Most of us understand that this kind of behavior is not acceptable on company time, and especially with company money.  However, the officer and others who allegedly sent the "sexy" text messages sued the department for breaking their privacy rights.  

     If this situation only involved police issued equipment, then I'd probably side with the department on this one.  HOWEVER it doesn't, as the estranged ex-wife DOES NOT use a department issued phone.  What about her privacy rights?  

     George Washington University professor Orin Kerr provides the following insight: 

"Does the government violate your rights when they take those messages off the server, even though you're not the government employee?" asks George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr. "And what does that mean for the rest of us, who do have privacy rights, when the government wants to get copies of those communications?"

     If this were an isolated case without possible influence on the rest of the country, that would be fine.  However this same kind of situation will inevitably continue to arise with other agencies, organizations, private companies and the like.  What is reasonable privacy?  What sort of protections can citizens and employees expect regarding their personal lives?  What will prevent the government or others from getting into your "dirty little secrets"?  

     I submit the following guidelines:  WATCH YOUR BACK JACK.  Its sort of like the advice you get from an old sage like your grandparents, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothin' at all".  Obviously the issue only came to trial because of the DISCRETION used by police administrators to view transcripts of transmitted messages.  

Discretion, its all around us! 

Have you ever wondered whether someone was lying to you or telling the truth?  I was stumbling and found an article in which goes through 5 signs in which you can detect whether someone is lying to you or not. These signs and techniques are used mainly by police and security experts. 

These five signs are:

1. Body Language Use

2. Emotional Gestures and Contraditions

3. Interactions and Reactions

4. Verbal Context and Content

5. Quick Subject Change.

 

These five signs are just rough outlines of what is covered on this website.  It is very fascinating and is fun to read and understand.  The psychology and law aspect of this would have to be the fact that knowing when someone is lying can help jurors determine wheter a person's testimony in court is truthful by the expressions shown on that person's face.

 

If you comment on this blog.  I would like to know some of your own personal experiences in detecting whether a person was lying or truthful, and if any of these signs were present.  

This article is about the Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback being accused of sexual assault for the second time. I think this ties into the class because the case has been dropped from the DA for the lack of any evidence, so it seems that it is all hearsay evidence. This could be a case where the girl was trying to take advantage of the superstar by accusing him of assualting her, or it could be a case in which the prosecution just didnt have enough evidence to satisfy the burden of proof to convict Ben. Either way he is not going to get in trouble by the law for whatever happened however he may be suspended by the league for violating the players code of conduct policy. Ben has been accused of assaulting a girl before and it makes people wonder if girls are just trying to take advantage of a celebrity or is he getting away with these assaults because of lack of evidence. The prosecution pretty much said in their press conference that they are confident that Ben assaulted the girl but cannot prove without a reasonable doubt to a jury that he is responsible, also it did not help that the girl, for some reason, did not want to press charges. The medicial examiner said they found male DNA but not enough to make a DNA profile. I think this would have come to a different outcome if they were in fact able to get a DNA profile from the sample.The case shows that there is in fact a burden of proof that needs to be satisfied for the DA to persue a case, and do not just go after people to punish them for supposably committing crimes.  

I've watched a show called Curse of the Lottery about how winning the lottery can destroy peoples lives. I decided to do a little research about it and I found a couple websites that explain the reality of winning the lottery. Although there are a few positive stories that come out of winning the lottery, it seems that more misfortune happens that fortune. These websites explain several cases in which winning the lottery practically ruined lives. The first website is a short article talking about how you have to have a financial plan for the large sum of money, otherwise lives can be torn apart. The second website talks about several people's stories and their downfalls. It also gives some facts about the lottery and some tips on what to do if you win. I think this "curse" is very interesting and it really shows how much an affect money has on people and their lives. Why does money make people so crazy?


Website 1
Website 2

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/12/prison.farmers/index.html

Here is a website that talks about the Florida Department of Corrections and how the inmates are becoming farmers 5 times a week. They go to the University of Florida Research and Education Center to water and harvest the crops that they have. The inmates get to keep what they harvest in return for their work. This has cut the cost of food that is needed for the inmates in prison, because they no longer have to order vegetables from other places. Having the inmates work on the farms helps them gain respect and work ethic, so those who are in prison for non-violent acts will be able to get out and find a job easier.

I think this is a great idea, because it is cheap labor and the inmates will be able to gain knowledge of farming and will be able to find jobs once they are released from prison. This also helps get the inmates out of the prison "world" and lets them have a chance to see what is outside the prison walls.

Recall that some of the projects are required. Of those, you can choose one of the following to do your presentation on (refer to the individual blog posts on these for more info):

Interview with a professional

Profile of a person wrongfully convicted

A case analysis

Choose a person

For your presentation, you'll have 5 minutes to present to the class what you know about your project topic, what research you did, etc, etc. 5 minutes sounds brief. And it is. But 5 minutes is also long! You need to be well prepared, you need to practice (and time) your presentation prior to coming to class.

We will be doing presentations on Tuesday 4/20, Tuesday 4/27 and THURSDAY 4/29.

13 people will present on the 20th and 27th, and 14 will present on the 29th.

Sign up here as a comment (like you did with portfolio appts). So you will need to read the comments before you and *count* to see if there is enough room on the day you want.

"April 10, 2010-A letter from 1985 shows Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- the future Pope Benedict XVI -- actively delayed in defrocking a priest who had been charged with molesting several young boys. One reason, according to the letter, which is signed by Ratzinger, is that the Vatican needed to "consider the good of the Universal Church."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125803561



     Imagine you occupy a high-ranking position within the Roman Catholic church, and it is your duty to address allegations of pedophilia involving Catholic priests.  In recent years, odds are you'd be hard pressed to make time for a vacation.

     In the last few weeks, documents have surfaced that seem to indicate prior to his appointment as the Holy Father, then Cardinal Ratzinger delayed the defrocking of a priest charged with molesting boys.  Should we be outraged?  Doesn't Pope Benedict deserve some sort of reprimand, or owe someone an apology?  I submit no, he does not. 

     Consider what we have been exposed to throughout this course, which I believe can be surmised in one word: DOUBT. 

     I remain in some sort of psychological Purgatory on my position or regard for the criminal justice system.  Things that I thought could be trusted, have been demonstrated to be untrustworthy.  Protocol and procedures I believed to be reliable and valid have been shown to be unreliable and false.  Issues that I previously thought to be "cut and dry" have been observed to be "loosey goosey". 

     In short, the "good guys" don't seem as good, and the "bad guys" don't seem as bad anymore.  There is always more to every story than anyone could ever know. 

     Back to the issue at hand, I submit the following scenarios, and plan to circle back to the Holy See.

SCENARIO #1: 
     Father Kiesle manipulates and endangers 6 young boys, molests them, gets caught, and pleads no contest to the charges.  This scenario is essentially what is presented in the article linked above.  "Bad guy" is caught, justice is served. 

SCENARIO#2: 
     During one of the "darker" times in the history of Psychology as a discipline, the creation of false memories of previous abuse were not that uncommon.  Dr. Samuel Saint, a young, aspiring, and charismatic school psychologist reads an article in the Times about a Catholic priest facing sexual abuse charges.  Samuel knows that many of the children in his school attend catechism classes at Our Lady of the Rosary parish, where Father Kiesle is a priest.
     Over the next few weeks, Samuel starts to pay close attention to the boys who frequently attend classes at Our Lady of the Rosary parish, and notices one of the boys, Nathan, is very quiet and distant, almost melancholy.  He asks Nathan's teacher, Mrs. Beckett about his performance in classes.  Mrs. Beckett tells Samuel "Nathan used to be one of my best students, always engaged in classwork, very eager to learn" she explained.  "In the last few months though, Nathan's performance has plummeted.  I've sent a few letters to his parents, asking about his situation at home, and offering extra help, but I've never received a response". 
     "Hmmm, something seems wrong here" Samuel thinks to himself, stirring a cup of stale Maxwell House in the teachers lounge.  Samuel writes a quick note to Mrs. Beckett, and drops it in her mailbox, asking her if she would mind sending Nathan to his office for a few minutes Thursday at first recess.
     In the days leading up to his meeting with Nathan, Samuel spends hours investigating pedophilia.  He reads accounts about the ways children are manipulated, and told to keep quiet.  He trudges through transcripts taken from interviews with convicted sex offenders, that reveal in tragic detail how these offenders touched, molested, and abused their victims.  In a phone call to his mother, Samuel remembers saying "If I find out one of my students has EVER been abused like this, I'm going to find the son of a b----- who did it, and make them pay". 
     Thursday morning, Mrs. Beckett peeks through the mini-blinds covering Samuels' office door, and Samuel motions her in.  "Nathan is here to see you Dr. Saint".  Nathan was wearing a red and yellow checkered shirt with what appeared to be a grape jelly stain on the sleeve.
     "Hi Nathan, I'm Sam, thanks for coming to see me" Samuel says in an upbeat voice.  "I've been speaking with Mrs. Beckett, and she tells me you're usually a great student, but lately you haven't been doing as well as she thinks you can.  My job here at the school is to talk to students, find out how they're doing, and see if there is anything we can help with" he explained.  "Has anything out of the ordinary happened that may be affecting your schoolwork?" 
     "No, everything is fine" Nathan replied quickly.  "Oh, well that's good to hear" said Samuel.  "You go to Our Lady of the Rosary right?" he asked Nathan.  "I used to, but I don't go anymore".  Samuel could feel his pulse through his shirt, "Why don't you go anymore Nathan?".  "Can I go to recess now?" Nathan asked.  "Sure, but would you mind meeting with me again next week?  I'd like to get to know you a little better, and if you come back you can have anything you want out of my candy jar" Samuel said quickly.  "Yeah, okay" replied Nathan.
     As Nathan walked to the playground, he wished that his Dad had never lost his job.  He wished that his Mom hadn't run out on them.  He wished that his Dad would start taking him to church again, as he missed his time with the kind and welcoming staff who worked there. 
     As soon as Nathan had left the office, Samuel picked up the phone and dialed.  "Our Lady of the Rosary parish, how can I help you" said the voice on the other end. "Yes, I'd like to talk to Father Kiesle please"....

     Now, I don't claim that this scenario is what happens every time.  I don't mean to exonerate every allegation against a priest.  And I certainly don't mean to negate or lessen or overlook those that have experienced such damaging and hurtful things as abuse. 
     But its possible that SCENARIO#2 could happen.  Maybe Father Kiesle was counseled by his superior, and was told "Hey, this is a ticking time bomb Father Kiesle.  If you plead guilty, we'll relocate you somewhere, and this will be behind you forever.  This guy, Dr. Samuel Saint is on some sort of crusade against us.  You just need to sign here and...."
    
     Now you're Pope Benedict, and you get a report about this situation on your desk.  You see the predicament?  As we have seen in the case with Michael Peterson, things may not always be what they seem.  So what do you do?  Maybe you will "consider the good of the Universal Church", while also considering the good of Father Kiesle. 

I remain, in "psychological purgatory" uncertain of who's right, who's wrong, who to believe, who to disregard, and looking for effective ways to address a science that shall ever be imperfect.   

I've always been interested in what exactly causes crime rates to go up. I searched google and found a reasonable answer. It stated that the reasons people commit crimes can either be because 1) poor parenting skills, 2) peer influence, 3) drugs and alcohol, 4) income and education, 5) tv violence, 6) easy access, and 7) hot weather.
All of them seemed to make sense to me, until I got to #7. Hot weather? Really? So I looked further into in and found out this interesting facts...
Crimes increase about 10% during the summer months- murder=16% increase and rape is a 13% increase.
There are several reasons for this. The most obvious one being that kids are out of school, bored, and have nothing do to. My general go to was just to watch TV, but apparently for some kids that isn't enough. Another reason the crime rates go up in summer is because of the heat. It can mess with your cerebral cortex, and cause you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do. It stated that most peoples common sense goes out the window when they're overheated-thus causing them to do something stupid...like commit a crime.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/278337/summer_crime_rates_does_crime_take.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8376295/Causes-of-Crime

Rodney Williams was charged with sexual assault of a child and like the title says, he was sentenced to three life terms in prison for sexual assault and 720 more years for possessing child pornography. The case involved a 5 year old girl. His wife found a camera with images on it of him sexually assaulting a child and more than 70 images of child pornography on his computer. Now I personally think that this is a little over kill. I mean don't get me wrong, I would put the guy in prison for life too, but 720 years, sounds a little crazy, we all know that he would probably die in like sixty years, so couldn't they just say life in prison without the chance of parole. Does the same thing.

Here's the article explaining the case.

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/90018597.html

After finishing the video on North Carolina v. Michael Peterson, I became interested in what his and his family's life was after his sentencing was given. I found a website that has the story. It describes how one of Peterson's defense attorneys is planning on appealing his verdict. I'm not sure if this has been done yet, but he plans on objecting to some of the evidence that was given at the trial, such as if it was legal to take Peterson's computer away from him and go through it, which is where they found his pornography.

Also on the website, are a few videos that you can click through and watch. One talks about what Kathleen Peterson was like, the other talks about the verdict of the trial, and the third is how Kathleen's sisters react to the whole situation.

In the article, they also bring up the possibility that the prosecution is also going to try Peterson for the death of his other wife, Elizabeth Ratliff, as well. It's a short article, but it does provide good information on what happened after Peterson's guilty verdict.

When I was working on my portfolio, I wanted to find a bit more information on Autopsy's.  I found a link to the University of Iowa's autopsy service and found it pretty informational.

http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/path_handbook/Appendix/AnatomicPath/autopsy.html

I was watching tv over Easter break and saw this on a commercial.  It is a documentary about the Oklahoma City Bombings.  It will air Monday, April 19th at 9pm. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36135258%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20/

"When Justice Stevens retires, it is entirely possible that there will be no Protestant justices on the Court, for the first time ever."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125641988

I found this website that talks about traps that your mind does to you that usually make you think incorrectly. I thought the first one was most relevant to this class. It's called the anchoring trap and it's when you base your thoughts/decisions off of the first thing you hear. The example they used is a study that asked people two questions: Is the population of Turkey was over 35 million? What's your best estimate? The results showed that almost everyone guessed around 35 million. They asked the same question to other people using 100 million instead. The results were the same. This reminds me of questioning witnesses and how using leading questions can result in false answers. If a witness isn't totally sure about what happened and they're asked if the suspect was fat, they're probably going to think the suspect was fat. The website gave 9 more mind traps that are very interesting as well and it shows how powerful our brain is and how we don't always realize that. Here's the website: http://litemind.com/thinking-traps/

After reading through many of the blog posts on jury selection and jury duty I found a link on Luke's post "It's Your Duty" describing ways to avoid jury duty.  At the top of the list were the words "jury nullification" which linked to another website that I now have bookmarked and find absolutely amazing.

            http://fija.org/  This organization known as the Fully Informed Jury Association has a wealth of information that is very helpful to jurors, and anyone else interested in researching information relating to jury selection and duties.  On their homepage they offer a critical reminder of the true function of all jurors:

            "The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government.  The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury.  This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.  Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict."

Gangs have been around since all of us can remember. Anywhere from the Blood, Crips, and the 18th Street. Gangs account for much of the violence in today's society, and they're only getting bigger. Most gangs are found in larger cities, however they're becoming more popular across the nation. In the website I found, it says that there are approximately 800,000 gang members in America.The reason for joining a gang is different for every member, however it's most common that young adults join because they're not getting enough attention at home or they have a bad family life. People also join a gang that fits their specific race/beliefs, this is another way that the members feel connected with each other. The age of gang members keeps on decreasing as well, kids as young as 10 years old are starting to join gangs for 'approval'. However, most of the kids that join gangs will die at a young(er) age due to the impeccable amounts of violence they're exposed to. I think it's extremely sad that these kids feel the need to join a gang to belong, however to them it's just something ordinary that they're use to. They know they're going to get beat up, and possibly killed but it's a price they're willing to pay.    Here are two websites that say more about gangs:
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-gangs

http://www.helpinggangyouth.com/statistics.html

Although this class is pretty much all about forensic psychology, I wanted to know what exactly forensic psychologists do with their job. I found a website that explains it well. Forensic psychologists can be employed and prisons, law enforcement agencies, or hospitals. They're job is to help out people in the law workforce that aren't specialized in psychology. Forensic psychologists can help to narrow down the suspect pool in a crime by figuring out their motives based on things involved in the crime. They do this by creating a personality profile. Forensic psychologists use their knowledge of human behavior and the law in their career. It's definitely an important and interesting job!

Here's the website for more information : http://helpingpsychology.com/criminal-profiling-the-job-of-a-forensic-psychologist