Arizona Criminal Law & Sex Crimes Post

Some news stories are bizarre, some are horrifying, some are mind boggling, and yet others, are all of those things. Why would a family torture one of their own? Why would they torment a small child, especially when that child is their own flesh and blood? When parents harm their own children, it can sometime be explained as the consequence of mental illness. After all, if the last 150 years of the study of evolution has taught us anything, it is that people protect their genetic legacy, and any deviation from that is abnormal.

But how does one explain when four adults renounce that simple maxim, and according to news stories, torture and kill their 10 year old relative? As reported William Hermann of the Arizona Republic:

Ame, according to police, had been stuffed by an adult into a 31- by 14- by 12-inch footlocker inside a trash-strewn home she shared with adult relatives and at least 12 children. She died in the footlocker.

According to Phoenix Police, relatives of the 10 year old girl are responsible for first degree murder. 

Phoenix police Wednesday night arrested John Allen and his wife, Sammantha, both 23, and both are expected to be charged with first-degree murder. Also arrested were Cynthia Stoltzmann, 44, and Judith Deal, 72, who face kidnapping and child-abuse charges.

Even more disturbing, if true, is the failure of child protective services, both here in Arizona and Utah, to do its job.  That some people do things, that may with good cause be considered evil, is predictable, certain, and preventable.  That, of course, is why we have civil servants whose sole responsibility is make some members of our society more civilized than they would care to be.  But it now appears that our government failed young Ame, and that is a tragedy.

Continue Reading

The police and the military are not the same thing.  They have different rules, organizations, procedures, and objectives.  How the military and police interact with the public should be different as well.  The purpose of the police is public safety.  The purpose of the military is national security.  But has that difference eroded in the past few years?  Do the police and military have the same mission?  If that is the case, is that because of the threat of terrorism, or from another reason altogether?  And of course, the ultimate question, is militarization of the police good or bad? 

At least one person, Radley Balko of the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, does not believe the militarization of the police is such a great idea. 

Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work.

In testimony before the United States House subcommittee on crime, Mr. Balko described militarization as "a broad term that refers to using military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments."  And: 

It’s a troubling trend because the military has a very different and distinct role than our domestic peace officers. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. The police are supposed to protect us while upholding our constitutional rights. It’s dangerous to conflate the two.

What Mr. Balko is describing is the creation and use of para-military type police forces, which are "extremely volatile, necessarily violent, overly confrontational, and leave very little margin for error."  This is especially troubling when para-military forces are not used against heavily armed and dangerous criminals, but in common ordinary circumstances such as: 

when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it. Whether you’re an innocent family startled by a police invasion that inadvertently targeted the wrong home or a drug dealer who mistakes raiding police officers for a rival drug dealer, forced entry into someone’s home creates confrontation. It rouses the basest, most fundamental instincts we have in us – those of self-preservation – to fight when flight isn’t an option.

Maybe I am overly cynical, but I don't think the militarization of the police has very much to do with the rise of terrorism.  The creation and use of para-military police forces started in the early 1980s, which was even before Usama Bin Laden began fighting the Soviets.  I believe the creation and use of para-military police units is a result of marketing and promotion of military weapons, by the military industrial lobby, to civilian law enforcement.   Economists have a law called Saye's Law,"supply will create its own demand."  The demand for para-military civilian police started when industry created and sold them the weapons, whether or not it served the public interest.  

Now, unfortunately, it seems some officers have taken this further and they act if they are not members of the community serving a public function, but an occupying army.  Let's hope that trend does not continue. 

One of my fondest memories a child was watching baseball on Saturday afternoons, and then every October, listening to Vin Scully do play by play for the playoffs and World Series.  And the moment that sticks in my mind the most is the same one that gave Boston Red Sox fans such heartache up until recently: Mookie Wilson's ground ball through Bill Buckner's legs.  As Vin Scully said of the image of Buckner doubled over in shame, "if a picture tells a thousand words, then this picture tells a million."  

If the image of Buckner tells a million words, then the above picture of Lenny "Nails" Dykstra in an orange jump suit in custody is no less informative.  As reported by Harvey Araton in today's New York Times: 

Dykstra, 48, faces federal charges of bankruptcy fraud and obstruction of justice, along with state charges of identify theft, grand theft auto and possession of drugs.

Unfortunately for Mr. Dykstra, his life after baseball has turned out poorly: 

Not long ago, Dykstra was the proud owner of an $18.5 million mansion in Thousand Oaks, Calif., which he purchased in 2007 from Wayne Gretzky. But since early June, home has been the Los Angeles County jail in a part of the city with no ocean views and where bail bondsmen storefronts greatly outnumber palm trees.

One thing that may have gotten Mr. Dykstra in trouble is bankruptcy fraud.  Many people who file bankruptcy do not realize that if you intentionally lie on the bankruptcy petition, including things like hiding assets, the worst thing that could happen is not just a fine or dismissal of your bankruptcy case.  You could go to prison. And it could even be something like what Mr. Dykstra allegedly did: sell property of the bankruptcy estate without court permission.  As reported by Fox News "Dykstra indicted for bankruptcy fraud"

Dykstra, who filed for bankruptcy in July 2009, allegedly removed, destroyed and sold property that was part of the bankruptcy estate without the permission of the trustee, ... The 48-year-old is accused of one count of bankruptcy fraud, one count of obstruction of justice, four counts of concealing property from the bankruptcy estate, three counts of embezzlement from the bankruptcy estate, and four counts of making false declarations to the Bankruptcy Court.

While Mr. Dykstra's story is very sad, I hope people who are considering filing bankruptcy will learn from it. While America does not have debtor's prisons, you can go to prison if you lie to the bankruptcy court.   

I wish every time the media does a story like Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson, about someone who they think is obviously guilty getting away with murder, they would do another story about America's place as the nation with the world's highest incarceration rate, even higher than allegedly rogue totalitarian nations like China, Iran, or North Korea.

Why are so many Americans in prison?  The statistics are overwhelming.  The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. At year-end 2009 it was 743 incarcerated per 100,000 population. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 7,225,800 people at year end 2009 were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population. 9.2% of African-Americans are prison, and 70% of the American prison population is non-white.

While the United States only has 5% of the entire world's population, we have 25% of the world's prison population.   Our incarceration rate is so high, that second place Russia has an incarceration rate 40% lower. In modern history, only Stalin's pre-World War Two Soviet Union- the one that had the ideologically driven purges and dreaded NKVD- had a higher incarceration rate than our nation does now.  The median for all other nations is an incarceration rate 1/6th of the United States. 

Some might say these rates are necessary to keep Americans safe from violent crime, but is that the case? For a great discussion of this point and the absurdly high incarceration rate, see "U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations" by Adam Liptak of the New York Times. 

I can't but help the fact part of the reason we have such a high incarceration rate is the importance the criminal justice system has in creating jobs.  For a detailed exposition of this point and comparison between Military Keynesianism and Penal Keynesianism see "Can Penal Keynesianism Replace Military Keynesianism?" by L. Randall Wray. 

The Casey Anthony murder trial in Florida is the biggest criminal justice story since the OJ Simpson murder trial. And just like OJ, it has inflamed passions on all sides.  I did not watch the entire trial start to finish, but I do have some observations.  

First, it is crystal clear the prosecution put too much time and energy in trying to prove Ms. Anthony was a bad person- "party girl" character assassination- and not enough energy into proving how and why Caley died. How Ms. Anthony behaved after Caley died only proves how she behaved; it does absolutely nothing to prove she murdered Caley.  Slaughterhouse Five is a Vonnegut classic devoted to the single point that normal people react abnormally to unusual events.  That is exactly what happened here.  Anyone who thinks he or she knows Ms. Anthony murdered Caley based on Ms. Anthony's partying or tattoo choice has been fooled by randomness. As Nassim Taleb would say, that person- and the prosecution- has confused noise for information. 

Second, the "CSI effect" was in full force.  It seems that the state of Florida simply could not prove how and when Caley died, but unfortunately for the prosecution, a jury pool used to the fantastic Hollywood world of CSI did not know that.   As such, the prosecution should have devoted more energy to educating the jury as the modern limits of forensic science, and less energy to a seemingly random, left field statement like if you hit a animal while driving, any reasonable person would check the trunk; and the prosecution should have completely scrapped its chloroform fixation.  

The prosecution should also take heed of Mr. Baez' calm and even mannered demeanor.  Juries dislike dramatic prosecutors who seem vindictive and blood thirsty. And sometimes they vote against the prosecution not because they believe the defendant is innocent, but because the prosecutor scares them.   While I don't think that happened here, I do think the prosecution would be well advised to tone down the drama and ditch the Nancy Grace theatrics.  

Finally, this jury did not make a mistake.  Juries don't make mistakes; bad lawyering and bad facts make mistakes.  This jury knew full well the consequences of their decision and the possibility of public scorn. We should thus assume this was their well reasoned and considered opinion.  

To see my interview with Nicole Crites of KPHO see the video above.