October 12, 2007

International outrage over abuses of U.S. boys

If you walked in partway through my presentation you might have assumed I was talking about human rights violations in a Third World country."
- Gregory Kutz, GAO investigator
speaking at Wednesday's Congressional committee hearing

Two days ago, I posted about a scathing governmental report and Congressional inquiry into widespread abuses at juvenile boot camps. In the wake of Wednesday's Congressional committee hearing, the topic is generating outrage around the world.

"Torture, starvation and death: how American boot camps abuse boys," screams a headline in today's Times of London.

The article, available online, presents unsettling details of abuses and deaths of youths around the country. Online comments from countries as far-ranging as Australia and China lament the failure of the world's superpower to protect its children from state-sanctioned abuse.


The publicity coincides with the Florida manslaughter trial of seven juvenile boot camp guards and a nurse over the death of a 14-year-old boy last year. Physical abuse of Martin Lee Anderson was caught on videotape. Jurors in that trial are set to begin deliberating today.


UPDATE: Just hours after I posted this, the jury reached its verdict. The all-white jury took just 90 minutes to find all of the defendants not guilty. "You kill a dog, you go to jail. You kill a little black boy and nothing happens," the lawyer for Anderson's mother told reporters outside the courtroom. CNN has the latest (along with links and blog commentaries, including the post you are reading here at "In the News").


Photo: Martin Lee Anderson, 14, who died at a boot camp on Jan. 6, 2006. A disturbing, 8-minute video clip of the boy's abuse is available online. Court TV also has a photo gallery on the case.

CNN linked to this post.

October 11, 2007

The Social Construction of Crime

Do you think that a crime is just, as Webster's would say, "an unlawful activity"? Think again. Yesterday, I was horrified to witness a prison guard brutalize a young man for the mere act of smiling, which the guard construed as a prison rules violation. In this essay, a sociology professor explains the complicated interpersonal negotiations that go into deciding whether a trivial act will be labeled a crime.

Guest essay by Bradley Wright*

What is a crime? This simple question turns out to have a variety of answers.

A simple answer would be that a crime is doing anything that is against the law. The problem with this, however, is that there are tens of thousands of laws, and who could possibly remember all of them? Did you know that here in Connecticut it is illegal to throw away used razor blades? In Massachusetts, it's illegal to use bullets as currency? In Arkansas, it is illegal to drive barefoot?

Some laws may be well-known but rarely or never enforced. For example, when was the last time you got a ticket for driving five miles over the speed limit? If a law is either not known or not enforced, does breaking it constitute a crime?

This raises the issue of which laws actually get enforced, and one answer uses the social psychological principle of social construction. Rooted in the sociological perspective of symbolic interactionism, social construction is the idea that social realities happens as people interact and come to an agreement about what a situation means.

Here’s an example that happens fairly regularly here at [the University of Connecticut]: A student walks around at night with a beer in their hand, and they see a police officer. Not only are they underage, but they are also not supposed to have an open container in public, so they drop the beer. The student defines the situation as one of avoiding an alcohol-related crime. The police officer sees the dropped bottle or cup, goes over to the student, and tells them to pick it up and dispose of it properly. The police officer defines the situation as one of littering. This situation is pretty straightforward—the student readily accepts the police officer’s definition and throws away the cup or bottle.

In other situations, however, there is protracted negotiation about what is happening and what is right and wrong.

Here's a video shot in St. George Missouri. Police Sergeant Sgt. James Kuehnlein confronts 20-year-old Brett Darrow for being stopped in a parking lot. It turns out that Brett had a video camera on in the back of his car, and so we are able to hear the whole interaction. Here's a snippet of the conversation:

Kuehnlein asks for identification. When Darrow asks whether he did anything wrong, the officer orders him out of the car and begins shouting.

"You want to try me? You want to try me tonight? You think you have a bad night? I will ruin your night. … Do you want to try me tonight, young boy?"

Darrow says no.

"Do you want to go to jail for some [expletive] reason I come up with?" the police officer says. Later, Darrow says, "I don't want any problems, officer."

"You're about to get it," Kuehnlein is heard saying, "You already started your [expletive] problems with your attitude."

[The police officer was ultimately fired.]

There are various implications of crime being socially negotiated. Most obviously, justice isn't a predetermined outcome based on what you actually do, instead it's sometimes what you can negotiate. This puts a premium on your ability to negotiate a successful outcome with police officers and other members of the criminal justice system. That's why it's such a good idea to be polite and deferential to the police when you interact with them. "Yes officer" and "no officer" are very good things to say, for a pleasant interaction paves the way for a more successful negotiation of what's going on.

The criminal justice system may not always enforce all written laws, but they do sometimes enforce unwritten laws. There are various norms of how to deal with the police and other officials, such as being polite, and even though these norms are not official laws, they are enforced as if they were.

For example, having a sarcastic tone with a police officer isn't illegal, but it can change the amount of punishment you get for a crime. Likewise, there is no law saying that defendants in court have to present themselves well and be apologetic, but it's quite possible that poor self-presentation in the courtroom will lead to a harsher sentence.

This social construction of crime can also be affected by individuals' place in society. The police and courtroom actors, like anyone, have their preconceptions about different types of people. That means that going into their interaction with somebody they might already have an idea as to whether that person is guilty or how that person will act.

These preconceptions, which we can also call stereotypes, can affect the interaction between the official and the person in question. In the video clip, the police officer clearly has some ideas about young people in fast cars, and he projected them onto the person he stopped. Not only age, but also race, gender, clothing, and general appearance can affect expectations of law enforcement officials which in turn, via social construction, can alter the way someone is treated by the police or the courts.

The next time that you get pulled over, maybe the real question is not what you did but rather what you can construct through social interaction.

*Reprinted with the written permission of Bradley Wright from the exceptionally high-quality blog Everyday Sociology. Dr. Wright is a sociology professor at the University of Connecticut.

CA: Sex offenders win temporary reprieve

Years ago, when he was 16, "John Doe" had consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl at a party. Now, long after he's done his time, the state of California wants to send him back to prison for living too close to a school or park.

"John" (whose name is being kept secret to protect his privacy) is one of four convicted sex offenders who are challenging the constitutionality of the new Jessica's Law and its residency restrictions.

The four are among 1,800 parolees who were recently ordered to move or face prison. Under Jessica's Law, approved by voters last November, sex offenders may not live within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

Yesterday (Oct. 10), John and the other three won a small victory when the state Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction forbidding the state from sending him back to prison until his challenge is heard in court later this month.

None of the four men challenging the law committed crimes against children; their crimes occurred as many as 22 years ago. Their attorneys are arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague, imposes unreasonable restrictions, and continues to punish people long after they have served their time.

CNN linked to this post.

October 10, 2007

Government probe finds widespread abuse at juvenile boot camps

When a spider bite sickened 15-year-old Roberto Reyes, staff at a juvenile boot camp tied a 20-pound sandbag around his neck. He later died.
An isolated incident? Not hardly.

The report of a government investigation, released today, documents widespread abuses at juvenile boot camps and wilderness therapy programs around the country and in U.S.-operated facilities abroad. Innvestigators found 1,619 incidents in 2005 alone.

The Government Accountability Office report attributes the abuses to a combination of factors, including reckless operations, untrained staff, insufficient food, and a lack of regulation or oversight. There's not even a central database to register complaints.

This morning, parents of some of the child victims testified at a hearing before the Education and Labor Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. It's good to see that Congress is finally shining a spotlight on this unregulated industry, because deaths like Roberto Reyes' – including many from dehydration and abusive physical discipline - have been in the news for decades.

October 9, 2007

Experiment aims to cut recidivism through reducing parole

One of the inmates I evaluated at San Quentin today had violated parole by missing a counseling appointment. The other had tried to beat a urinalysis after drinking alcohol on his birthday. Every day, busloads of "technical violators" like these two young men are dumped off at California prisons, giving the state the highest recidivism rate in the United States. Within three years of release, two-thirds of California parolees are back behind bars; that's twice the national average.

One method of reducing recidivism that is currently under consideration is to eliminate parole for all except the most dangerous of released prisoners. It's been done in other states and, counterintuitively, it may make the public safer. That's because limited resources can be targeted toward identifying and supervising the few very dangerous ex-prisoners.

Parole agents in two Southern California counties will be testing this idea starting next month. If it works, the changes may be implemented statewide next year.

Joan Petersilia, the UC Irvine criminology professor who chaired the governor's Rehabilitation Strike Team, explains the current situation and the need for reform in an op-ed in today’s Los Angeles Times.

Conviction overturned for failure to allow expert testimony on eyewitness identification

But courts retain broad discretion to decide

An Illinois appeals court has overturned a man's conviction because the trial court did not allow expert testimony on the fallibility of eyewitness evidence.

The case involved Walter Allen, who was sentenced to 43 years in prison for a 2001 robbery-shooting. The robbery was committed by two men wearing hoodies who entered a dry cleaning business, demanded money, and shot a woman employee in the back. From her hospital bed, the woman identified Allen from a photograph as the shooter.

At Allen's trial, the judge refused to allow an expert witness to testify for the defense about problems with eyewitness identification. The judge said that the testimony of Dr. Steven Penrod, a respected psychology-law professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, was unnecessary and might confuse the jury.

In its opinion in People v. Allen, the appellate court pointed to research establishing that eyewitnesses are often wrong, and that jurors have misconceptions about eyewitness accuracy. It cited prior Illinois rulings stating that expert testimony can dispel myths and correct misconceptions, and that "the science of eyewitness perception has achieved the level of exactness, methodology and reliability of any psychological research."

The court said it is not intending to lower the bar and allow all expert testimony about eyewitness accuracy. Judges are still entitled to exclude such testimony in some cases, but first they must carefully scrutinize the proffered testimony and determine whether it is relevant and might be helpful in the specific case. At Allen's trial, the court said, no such careful scrutiny took place.

Traditionally, trial judges are given wide latitude to decide whether to allow expert psychological testimony. For example, in a high-profile murder case in Michigan, a judge last week refused to allow either the defense or the prosecution to call dueling experts.

In that case, Thomas Richardson is accused of pushing his wife Juanita off a cliff at the scenic Pictured Rocks Cliffs. The defense claims that the death was accidental.

In denying both a defense motion to call a clinical neuropsychologist and a prosecution motion to call a forensic psychologist, the court said that the experts' testimony reflected competing opinions rather than science.

"The vagaries of the human mind and spirit are part of the puzzle left to a jury," wrote Alger County Circuit Court Judge Charles Stark. "Nothing proffered can assist them in determine the manner of death."

More commentary on the Allen decision is online at the Eyewitness Identification Reform blog.