http://socialecology.uci.edu/faculty/scole
Simon A. Cole specializes in the historical and sociological study of the interaction between science, technology, law, and criminal justice.
May 2010 Archives
I am a huge fan of the Hills as sad as it is to admit. I recently have seen in the headlines that Kristin Cavallari (one of the stars) has been seen around completely wasted and out of control begging for cocaine. I think that it is interesting to see that a girl that came from a small town became instantly famous over night and I could see where the limelight and Hollywood could easily introduce her into the world of drugs and alcohol. I think it will be interesting to see where this situation goes, and hopefully she won't end up the next Lindsey Lohan.
I am writing this Post because I knew Ben during middle school back home in Des Moines. Although we weren't friends, his death is one that shocks me. As I knew Ben and remembered him from middle school I would never have guessed him out of all people for this to happen to. Ben was a very nice guy, very smart and loved to debate. I know that he was very avid in his community and volunteered a lot. He was also one to never put himself in any situation that had danger...from what i remeber and have heard by his friend.
The allogations of his death go like this:
He was found on Highway 65/69, which is a stretch from Indianola, Iowa right into Des Moines. He was reported slumped over the bridge and someone called in. We now know that he was shot in the head. They have switched the ruling from homicide to possible suicide. His parents and friends knew that he was fearing for his family's life. He had recieved threats...or so people think, about his family and himself. His family and friends think that he witnessed a crime or was made to think he did. They threatened him if he told police or anyone else.They also found him tied up with plastic zipper ties...which now is being said that Ben bought those himself a few hours before his death.
The whole community is shocked as to why Ben would committ suicide. He is known to have a ver happy life and he was very successful. My question is what kind of fear would make a person kill themselves to save their family. Also, how does an investigation go in this kind of case. What determines the change in homocide to suicide knowing his circumstances.
This case has touched the southside of Des Moines greatly and I know that his family and friends will do everything they can to find out the underlying cause of his case. In a recent report by the DCI, it almost seemed like they were going to slow down the investigation now that they have some answers. I really hope they keep working hard to find out everythig possible
Below are links to various sources about Ben's death
http://www.kcci.com/news/23420314/detail.html
http://www.kcci.com/news/23286009/detail.html
There are many more articles, these are just a few
Have you ever seen those signs on the road that say "Red Light Photo Enforced?" Unlike the speeding camera photo enforcement I've seen, this one delivers on its' promises. Some of you may have encountered these pesky devices. When you or someone nearby approaches a red light too fast a noticeably bright flash will be apparent at night. This was one or multiple cameras taking a digital photo of your license plate, and in some cases, a quick video of the violation. Someone just got a ticket for running a red light. Looking up nearby locations, I found 4 red light cameras in Waterloo and these pesky things are becoming more common. As these devices are working 24/7 on either busy or dangerous intersections, there very few methods of getting around them. These methods decrease as your destination has fewer possible routes you can take and the installation of more of these cameras.
Since there is no officer to actually give you a moving violation, which goes on your record and affects your insurance rate, a photo enforced citation comes simply with a fine (ranging anywhere from $75 to $300). Does this actually remove dangerous drivers from the road? No, but they will have a financial impact.
To share a personal story, my hometown back in Illinois had none of these red light cameras. With less than one week from returning from my Afghanistan deployment, I encountered one of these on a road I take often around 1:15 AM that night. I was about to make a right hand turn, slowing down to observe oncoming traffic, when I saw a bright flash of light all around me. I was still a little shaken from my deployment, so I did the first thing that training has taught me... Drive out of the kill zone. I thought I was being mortared. About a month later, i got a fine of $100 with the video and photos to "prove" I ran a red-light right turn. There was a means to schedule a court date to refute charges, but if I lost, I would have to pay an additional $100. In the video they took, you could see my brake lights on, slowing to the turn, the camera flashes, and my car literally burning rubber to get out of there. I decided just to pay the fine. I find out that not only my neighborhood had these installed at almost every light, but a few other neighborhoods did the same thing. Half my unit received these fines within the first few weeks of being back. Almost everyone that tried to fight it, lost, and had to pay the court fee as well as their fine.
As many others in my town feel psychologically, these police ran cameras show how our cops aren't there to "Serve and Protect." They're just another form of tax collector not even willing to fine us themselves.
Drug Court plays a huge roll in both Psychology and law. It is clear that drug court is for those who have a sever addiction to a substance or alcohol. I wanted to know what exactly goes on during drug court, the requirements, and some statistics that follow drug court.
Drug court was put in place in 1989. This was a system to help felony drug offenders. It is community based that focuses on rehabilitation, treatment, and supervised programs. Drug Court is specifically designed for drug offenders. It is there to help them rehabilitate their lives with a goal of lowering the incarceration rates due to drug offenders. Approximately 1/3 of people in prison are drug offenders. That is a huge number when we know the number of people just in prison alone! The
The psychology part is the addiction itself. I think it is very hard for people to really understand how addiction works, especially in highly addictive drugs. The addiction is what makes a person a felony drug offender. It takes intense drug court to help rehabilitate them and have them back to normal society. The stress that goes along with drug users to trying to become clean is a big part of psychology as well. This all falls under behavioral psychology, clinical psychology, and sometimes abnormal psychology.
For the law part of
Below are some websites to help better explain drug courts and what does into them.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/enforce/drugcourt.html
This is a
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/36
This is a website that is fact based, It shows a graph of incarceration rates and then
There are many laws put into effect in the past that make no sense today. As federal laws are carefully constructed to have concrete language, we rarely see these obsurd laws. Since the 10th Amendment in our Bill of Rights gives power to the State in governing themselves, laws are created and suited for the community. In Florida, a parking meter must be paid if one was to tie an elephant to it. In Illinois, it is forbidden to fish from a giraffe's neck. In Iowa, ministers need to obtain a permit prior to transferring liquor over state lines. In many states, the punishment for horse theft is still hanging. For all the "dumb" laws you may find, just realize that for them to be created, someone had to have violated it.
Psychologically, if anything, these laws put a smile on faces. For cynics, it may stir their faith or confidence in the efficiency of their government.
My question is why haven't a lot of these laws simply be removed? Have people been arrested/fined for any of these "dumb laws" recently? Are these kinds of dumb laws still being created?
Im sure everyone heard about the recent attempted terrorist attack in times square. I personally think it is pretty scary that after all the security precautions that are in use these days at airports and in the United States in general, this could still happen. It kinda makes you think there is really nothing that we can do about terrorism. This article explains that Faisal Shahzad was pulled off of a plane in which he was attempting to escape to the middle east after a car bomb that he had set up in the middle of Times Square inadvertantly didnt go off. Shahzad was on a plane that was taxxing down the run way attempting to take off when authorities demanded the plane be turned around. The FBI has associated Shahzad with the Pakistan Taliban. He has admitted on video that he was behind the attempted bombing. He is facing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges. Obama stated that 100s of lives were saved thanks so the actions of an ordinary citizen and law enforcement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_re_us/us_times_square_car_bomb
I was on the Courier website when I ran across this story. Eric Rule was struggling with a Waterloo police officer, Steven Bose, when officer Bose fired his Taser at Rule. Officer Bose was on his knees, while Eric Rule was grasping hid head. After Officer Bose taser was fired, another officer, Jamie Sullivan, who was standing behind both individuals, fired his Taser at rule. After Officer Sullivan fired his Taser at rule, he used his Taser to "drive stun" rule. After being hit three times with a taser, Rule was still not able to be reined in, so Officer Bose used his handgun and shot Rule, killing him.
Not much information is being released about the case and waterloo police declined to comment on the incident, because of a possible litigation in the matter. There are still questions about why these Tasers didn't stop Rule. Engineers determined the Tasers were operating to specifications during their test runs. However after looking at the three pronged darts recovered from the scene, they showed no signs that significant electrical current had passed though them.
Here is a little information about Tasers for those of you who are not that familiar with them. Tasers are designed to override a person's nervous system with an electrical shock delivered by two barbed probes. Both probes, which remain attached to the Taser gun by wires, have to hit the person in order to complete the circuit and deliver a five-second shock. This shock keeps the brain from telling the muscles what to do. I know of two types of Taser, one were the probes are shot out from the gun and the other one where you have to touch the Taser to the person for it to work. I do not know the difference between a Taser at Rule and a Taser to "drive stun" rule.
A couple of questions come to mind. I assume that the officers have to test their Tasers before they go on duty. I know the UNI police officers have to test their Tasers every day. The first questions is did the Officers test their Tasers that day. If they did test their Tasers and they worked what happened from the time they tested them until the time they were used that would cause them not to work. My second questions is did they have to shoot for the kill. There were two officers on the scent with Rule. Rule was down on the ground with one officer while the other officer was standing behind them. I don't see why that Officer Sullivan couldn't have fired a shot to injure Rule, but not to kill him. Instead Officer Bose, who was on the ground with Rule, fired the shot that killed him. I guess I could see why Officer Sullivan didn't want to shoot his gun in fear that he might hit his fellow officer. Since Officer Bose was on the ground with Rule he might not have had a good shot or a chance to really aim his shot. This situation just makes me wonder if there was a way around killing Rule. The article doesn't state how old Rule was or why he and the police had that encounter. I just think that the officers shouldn't have fired their gun and killed Rule unless it was absolutely necessary and if the officers had no other choice and their lives were in immediate danger, but that's just my option.
Here is a link to the article:
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_f7d53a56-56bf-11df-9cfd-001cc4c03286.html
I've noticed many posts about how to get out of Jury duty. With all those comments, the question then becomes, "What are the benefits?" Psychologically, there are many reasons people try to find a way out. They could include the fear of the defendant looking for vengeance against those who were responsible for their incarceration, the responsibility of someone's fate is too great for them, or so on. In select states, a juror could get pay from their employer and pay for jury duty service without loss of vacation time.
Remember though, jury duty should not be about materialistic gains. It should fill an individual with pride in their system, knowing that the system of law can work. It gives a participant a responsibility that can save or condemn a life. It can provide new experiences or insights about our system that cannot be learned in textbooks or television. Remember, one person can make a difference. One person can question the guilt or innocence of the defendant. One person can save a life... or condemn it. The benefit should be knowing that one person can make a positive difference in our society, one individual, or both.
With Hollywood hype in certain movies such as "Boon Dock Saints" and numerous comic book heroes, how do real vigilantes fair up? Psychologically, these individuals typically inspire hope and a sense of justice to criminals that evade the long arm of the law. The vigilants themselves feel it is up to them to assist or serve justice that the law will not or cannot provide. Criminals feel added fear by someone being a "hero." However, in law, these vigilants are typically frowned upon by the government or seen as criminals themselves. Sometimes, vigilantes help society by ridding the neighborhood of criminals. Like in the comic book stories, however, they can cause damage while doing so.
In the case of Robert Bell and Gary Sellers, they accidentally killed the wife of a known pedophile while setting their car and house on fire. Why did they do this? Bell and Sellers wanted to do the community a favor by ridding a known pedophile. They accomplished this by making Timothy Chandler homeless, penniless, and now a widow. Did these vigilantes admit to their actions? Yes and with remorse.
There are other vigilantes that take more careful actions, however. For example, there are internet vigilantes out there who attempt to regulate the lack of control on the world wide web. These people will find online scams, phishing scams, and immoral content. After doing so, they will gather information on their target and inform the local law of their target of their misbehavior. On a less web-based example of positive vigilantism would be the Guardian Angels. These people are a non-profit international organization that do group patrols in dangerous neighborhoods, raise awareness to communities on safe practices, teach adults on how to make a citizen's arrest, and so on.
Vigilantes that work outside the law have proven that fair justice cannot be served in most cases. However, when working in legal bounds, these individuals can do good. However, should civilians be allowed to operate without legal approval? Do these vigilantes do more harm or good? Would you feel safe knowing a vigilante could be watching what you do? Vigilantes: Menace or Heroes? You decide.
Recent Comments