According to KDKA.com, Ben Roethlisberger admitted to police on the night of the alleged sexual assault that he had consensual contact with his accuser, a 20 year-old college student.
Georgia authorities have also requested than Roethlisberger submit a blood sample for DNA testing. This seems to suggest that there is some physical evidence for a DNA comparison.
Finally, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is reporting that two Pittsburgh area off-duty police officers were traveling with Roethlisberger. Neither officer has been interviewed by Georgia authorities. Roethlisberger's attorney Ed Garland reports he has assembled an investigation team of his own.
To read more: http://kdka.com/sports/Ben.Roethlisberger.allegations.2.1552180.html
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
A Football Fan's Guide to Georgia Law
In light of the allegations made against Pittsburgh Steeler quarterback Ben Roethlisberger here is a quick rundown on Georgia law as compared to the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. CAVEAT: In Georgia, Pennsylvania and every other state an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rape: Both Georgia and Pennsylvania have a rape statute. Both require engaging in sexual intercourse by force. It is worth noting that Georgia is the last state to sentence an offender to death for raping an adult.
Aggravated Sodomy: In Pennsylvania it is known as involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Georgia defines it as contact between the sex organ of one person coming in contact with the mouth or anus of another person by force.
Aggravated Sexual Battery: In Pennsylvania this would be considered Aggravated Indecent Assault. In Georgia this is referred to as penetration of a sex organ with an object. This would more often than not be digital (finger) penetration.
Sexual Battery: In Pennsylvania this would be equivalent to Indecent Assault. In Georgia this is intentionally making contact" with a body part such as buttocks or breast.
Rape: Both Georgia and Pennsylvania have a rape statute. Both require engaging in sexual intercourse by force. It is worth noting that Georgia is the last state to sentence an offender to death for raping an adult.
Aggravated Sodomy: In Pennsylvania it is known as involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Georgia defines it as contact between the sex organ of one person coming in contact with the mouth or anus of another person by force.
Aggravated Sexual Battery: In Pennsylvania this would be considered Aggravated Indecent Assault. In Georgia this is referred to as penetration of a sex organ with an object. This would more often than not be digital (finger) penetration.
Sexual Battery: In Pennsylvania this would be equivalent to Indecent Assault. In Georgia this is intentionally making contact" with a body part such as buttocks or breast.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Report Says Inmate Recidivism Rate as High as 94-Percent
This past Sunday, the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that a unique long term study of recidivism rates found the problem to be worse than many had suspected. The study revealed that recidivism rates can be as high 94-percent for some inmates.
The numbers are part of a 20-year study, tracking inmates who were first jailed between 1987 and 1991, says psychologist Dr. Greg Little.
Little and psychologist Dr. Kenneth Robinson, founders of Correctional Counseling Inc., were trying out a new treatment program in 1987 and began tracking inmates to compare their results with those of inmates who went through only standard counseling. They followed each inmate, recording every re-arrest and every re-incarceration.
Tennessee Department of Correction studies show recidivism rates of about 51-percent over a three-year period, and national studies show recidivism averages of roughly 65-percent over three years. The study followed 1,381 inmates who first served time at the Shelby County (TN) Correction Center between 1987 and 1991. Some were taking part in Little's new treatment program . There were 1,052 inmates who used moral reconation therapy (MRT) and 329 inmates in a comparison group who received only standard therapy.
Results of the 20-year study included:
About 94-percent of inmates receiving only standard counseling had been rearrested and 82-percent of them wound up back behind bars.
Those receiving MRT therapy, had an 81-percent rearrest rate and 61-percent were rearrested. It was reduction of about 25-percent from the group that did not receive MRT therapy.
To read the entire article: http://m.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/mar/07/recidivism-rate-worse-study-finds/
The numbers are part of a 20-year study, tracking inmates who were first jailed between 1987 and 1991, says psychologist Dr. Greg Little.
Little and psychologist Dr. Kenneth Robinson, founders of Correctional Counseling Inc., were trying out a new treatment program in 1987 and began tracking inmates to compare their results with those of inmates who went through only standard counseling. They followed each inmate, recording every re-arrest and every re-incarceration.
Tennessee Department of Correction studies show recidivism rates of about 51-percent over a three-year period, and national studies show recidivism averages of roughly 65-percent over three years. The study followed 1,381 inmates who first served time at the Shelby County (TN) Correction Center between 1987 and 1991. Some were taking part in Little's new treatment program . There were 1,052 inmates who used moral reconation therapy (MRT) and 329 inmates in a comparison group who received only standard therapy.
Results of the 20-year study included:
About 94-percent of inmates receiving only standard counseling had been rearrested and 82-percent of them wound up back behind bars.
Those receiving MRT therapy, had an 81-percent rearrest rate and 61-percent were rearrested. It was reduction of about 25-percent from the group that did not receive MRT therapy.
To read the entire article: http://m.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/mar/07/recidivism-rate-worse-study-finds/
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Back Tracking on Budget Driven Early Release
Last week, the New York Times wrote about states that are reconsidering early release for prisoners as a means to save money in difficult economic times. The Times cited fours states reassessing early release.
1. Illinois--the governor described the early release plan as "a big mistake."
2. Colorado--the state thought they would save $19 million. In reality, they have released only 264 out of projected 2,600 inmates.
3. California--a victims rights group has sued to block the use of credit to reduce sentences.
4. Michigan--Prosecutors are challenging the early release of some inmates.
The public is demanding less spending, fewer taxes and the same level of security. Something has to give. It cost money to be tough on crime. What are voters willing to sacrifice to lock-up more offenders?
To read the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/us/05parole.html
1. Illinois--the governor described the early release plan as "a big mistake."
2. Colorado--the state thought they would save $19 million. In reality, they have released only 264 out of projected 2,600 inmates.
3. California--a victims rights group has sued to block the use of credit to reduce sentences.
4. Michigan--Prosecutors are challenging the early release of some inmates.
The public is demanding less spending, fewer taxes and the same level of security. Something has to give. It cost money to be tough on crime. What are voters willing to sacrifice to lock-up more offenders?
To read the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/us/05parole.html
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Four States: A Look at Sex Offender Residency Restrictions
The use of residency restrictions for sex offenders has become controversial. Recent studies have found that not only do such restrictions not work, they may even expose families to greater danger.
Some states with residency restrictions, including Iowa, Florida and Ohio, have conducted studies that have concluded that residency laws are actually counterproductive and often destabilize the offender. A 2009 study by Ohio State University found that residency restrictions may inadvertently exacerbate the factors correlated with recidivism. http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/Sex_Offender/SO_Pdfs/Residence%20Restrictions.PP.pdf
Although the evidence regarding residency restrictions seems clear, not all policymakers agree. Recent news reports show that state and local lawmakers are going in many different directions.
Wisconsin lawmakers are contemplating enacting statewide residency restrictions. The proposed bill would supersede the patchwork of local ordinances. Green Bay, for instance, has an ordinance that limits certain offenders from living almost anywhere in the city. The ripple effect of the ordinance has caused neighboring communities to enact restrictions to prevent the migration of sex offenders to the suburbs.
In New Hampshire, the legislature is considering a bill that would prevent communities form establishing residency restrictions for sex offenders. The bill is in response to a court decision regarding the city of Dover's ordinance, which prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day care center. The court found the ordinance unconstitutional in last summer after a challenge by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. "It's dangerous to restrict residency for sex offenders because it diminishes law enforcement's ability to track these offenders," said Representative Beth Rodd.
In California, the state paid $126,000 to relocate a sexually violent predator to a lightly populated desert community, according to the USA Today. His relocation last September to this remote area came about after a doctor, and then a judge in 2007 determined that the offender was no longer a danger to others. The judge determined with supervision and treatment he could be released to the community. Prior to that determination he was civilly committed to a state hospital for an indefinite period of time.
A Pittsburgh City Council member, Vince Gastgeb, has an even more draconian idea. The city already has a restrictive sex offender residency ordinance. Gastgeb is proposing that all registered sex offender be continuously monitored by global positioning satellite. Pittsburgh is a city in financial distress. GPS might sound good to Gastgeb constituents, but certainly isn't practical.
Each of these decisions or proposals have generated support or anger in the community and are clear examples of the issues states and local communities face as they pass or refine laws regarding released sex offenders and where and how they can live in the community.
To read more:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010702199881
http://www.wpxi.com/news/22605105/detail.html?taf=burg
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201003010407/GPG0101/3010514
Some states with residency restrictions, including Iowa, Florida and Ohio, have conducted studies that have concluded that residency laws are actually counterproductive and often destabilize the offender. A 2009 study by Ohio State University found that residency restrictions may inadvertently exacerbate the factors correlated with recidivism. http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/Sex_Offender/SO_Pdfs/Residence%20Restrictions.PP.pdf
Although the evidence regarding residency restrictions seems clear, not all policymakers agree. Recent news reports show that state and local lawmakers are going in many different directions.
Wisconsin lawmakers are contemplating enacting statewide residency restrictions. The proposed bill would supersede the patchwork of local ordinances. Green Bay, for instance, has an ordinance that limits certain offenders from living almost anywhere in the city. The ripple effect of the ordinance has caused neighboring communities to enact restrictions to prevent the migration of sex offenders to the suburbs.
In New Hampshire, the legislature is considering a bill that would prevent communities form establishing residency restrictions for sex offenders. The bill is in response to a court decision regarding the city of Dover's ordinance, which prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day care center. The court found the ordinance unconstitutional in last summer after a challenge by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. "It's dangerous to restrict residency for sex offenders because it diminishes law enforcement's ability to track these offenders," said Representative Beth Rodd.
In California, the state paid $126,000 to relocate a sexually violent predator to a lightly populated desert community, according to the USA Today. His relocation last September to this remote area came about after a doctor, and then a judge in 2007 determined that the offender was no longer a danger to others. The judge determined with supervision and treatment he could be released to the community. Prior to that determination he was civilly committed to a state hospital for an indefinite period of time.
A Pittsburgh City Council member, Vince Gastgeb, has an even more draconian idea. The city already has a restrictive sex offender residency ordinance. Gastgeb is proposing that all registered sex offender be continuously monitored by global positioning satellite. Pittsburgh is a city in financial distress. GPS might sound good to Gastgeb constituents, but certainly isn't practical.
Each of these decisions or proposals have generated support or anger in the community and are clear examples of the issues states and local communities face as they pass or refine laws regarding released sex offenders and where and how they can live in the community.
To read more:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010702199881
http://www.wpxi.com/news/22605105/detail.html?taf=burg
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201003010407/GPG0101/3010514
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Supreme Court Takes on Another Miranda Issue
Fresh off of two recent Miranda decisions the U.S. Supreme Court was back at it this week. On Monday, the High Court heard arguments in another Miranda case. This time the Court must decide whether a suspect's silence is itself enough to invoke his right to remain silent. Sound a little confusing? Obviously, there had to be a break in silence if the suspect "said" something incriminating.
Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.
The officers in the room testified that Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," ''no," ''I don't know." When one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."
He was convicted, but on appeal he requested that his statement be thrown out because he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by his silence. The court of appeals agreed and threw out his confession.
According to the Associated Press, several Supreme Court justices indicated during Monday's argument that they might let the confession stand, saying suspects should tell police that they want to be silent to take advantage of that Miranda right.
"Why don't we have just a clear rule: You are read your rights; if you don't want to be questioned, all you have to say is 'I don't want to be questioned'?" Justice Antonin Scalia said. Last week Justice Scalia, writing on behalf of the majority in Maryland V. Shatzer, 08-860, set a clear rule of 14 days to rebut a presumption for invoking counsel as set forth in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
Other justices saw problems with that rule, saying police should have known that Thompkins didn't want to cooperate by his lack of cooperation. "It's at least arguable that his silence indicated he wished to remain silent," Justice John Paul Stevens said.
My Take
It will be interesting to see if the Court provides some specificity as it did in Shatzer or takes a more hands-off approach as the Court did with last week's other Miranda decision in Florida v. Powell, 08-1175. It would appear, based on Justice Scalia's question, that at least he would be interested in a specific rule requiring some audible response to invoking the right to remain silent.
Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.
The officers in the room testified that Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," ''no," ''I don't know." When one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."
He was convicted, but on appeal he requested that his statement be thrown out because he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by his silence. The court of appeals agreed and threw out his confession.
According to the Associated Press, several Supreme Court justices indicated during Monday's argument that they might let the confession stand, saying suspects should tell police that they want to be silent to take advantage of that Miranda right.
"Why don't we have just a clear rule: You are read your rights; if you don't want to be questioned, all you have to say is 'I don't want to be questioned'?" Justice Antonin Scalia said. Last week Justice Scalia, writing on behalf of the majority in Maryland V. Shatzer, 08-860, set a clear rule of 14 days to rebut a presumption for invoking counsel as set forth in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
Other justices saw problems with that rule, saying police should have known that Thompkins didn't want to cooperate by his lack of cooperation. "It's at least arguable that his silence indicated he wished to remain silent," Justice John Paul Stevens said.
My Take
It will be interesting to see if the Court provides some specificity as it did in Shatzer or takes a more hands-off approach as the Court did with last week's other Miranda decision in Florida v. Powell, 08-1175. It would appear, based on Justice Scalia's question, that at least he would be interested in a specific rule requiring some audible response to invoking the right to remain silent.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Political Theater: Oklahoma's Death for Child Rapist
The Oklahoman reported that the Oklahoma House voted 91-2 to force repeat child molesters to face possible penalties of life in prison or death.
Under current law, a child molester can face a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for a first offense. The new legislation will increase the penalty to include a maximum sentence of life without parole.
It would also allow repeat offenders to face life without parole or the death penalty.
Representative Rex Duncan says the death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst criminals. He says he believes people with a history of violently raping children fall into that category.
Oklahoma legislators obviously forgot about the 2008 U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana. According to the New York Times, the Courts 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana and five other states including Oklahoma. The court went beyond the question in the case-imposing the death penalty for child rape-to rule out the death penalty for any individual crime . . . where the victim’s life was not taken.
The case was an appeal by a Louisiana inmate, Patrick Kennedy. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2003 for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter, whose injuries were severe enough to require emergency surgery. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld Mr. Kennedy’s conviction and rejected his challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence. The High Court prohibited imposing the death penalty for child rape.
My Take
Oklahoma's effort to impose the death penalty on multiple child rapists is pure political theater. The legislature knows that the U.S. Supreme Court has outlawed the death penalty for anything short of murder. The High Court would never let the state execute a child rapist.
However, the near unanimous vote on the issue sure makes House members look like no nonsense crime fighters. The reality is those same "lock 'em up" lawmakers are taking time and resources away from issues that could really make a difference to their constituents.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-house-passes-death-penalty-bill-for-repeat-child-molesters/article/3443116#ixzz0h3vQLdXx
Under current law, a child molester can face a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for a first offense. The new legislation will increase the penalty to include a maximum sentence of life without parole.
It would also allow repeat offenders to face life without parole or the death penalty.
Representative Rex Duncan says the death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst criminals. He says he believes people with a history of violently raping children fall into that category.
Oklahoma legislators obviously forgot about the 2008 U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana. According to the New York Times, the Courts 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana and five other states including Oklahoma. The court went beyond the question in the case-imposing the death penalty for child rape-to rule out the death penalty for any individual crime . . . where the victim’s life was not taken.
The case was an appeal by a Louisiana inmate, Patrick Kennedy. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2003 for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter, whose injuries were severe enough to require emergency surgery. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld Mr. Kennedy’s conviction and rejected his challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence. The High Court prohibited imposing the death penalty for child rape.
My Take
Oklahoma's effort to impose the death penalty on multiple child rapists is pure political theater. The legislature knows that the U.S. Supreme Court has outlawed the death penalty for anything short of murder. The High Court would never let the state execute a child rapist.
However, the near unanimous vote on the issue sure makes House members look like no nonsense crime fighters. The reality is those same "lock 'em up" lawmakers are taking time and resources away from issues that could really make a difference to their constituents.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-house-passes-death-penalty-bill-for-repeat-child-molesters/article/3443116#ixzz0h3vQLdXx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
