Arizona Criminal Law & Sex Crimes Post

By Pitchforks: 

In the immediate aftermath of the Jodi Arias capital murder trial Guilty verdict, spectators outside the Phoenix courthouse who made up the banner-bearing “mob” – ironically, Nancy Grace’s term, repeated in her HLN commentary at least 3 times immediately before the verdict – remarked that their faith in the criminal justice system had been restored.

Restored from what? And to what? One Guilty verdict, assuming it is not 100% wrongful, has no significant impact, positive or otherwise, on the integrity of the criminal justice system. That people should be attributing such importance to one obscenely media-hyped case, a case that but for the arbitrary prominence that the media ascribed to it is no different from myriads of cases in the US, is truly disturbing. It speaks loudly about the general public’s distorted notions of what constitute significant news events, and how their perceptions have been grossly warped by the media.

What these misguided trial groupies really mean is “This is just compensation for Casey Anthony.” Two years ago, when Anthony was acquitted in Florida in her capital murder trial, the reaction was exactly the same: the verdict was received as extremely significant in the vast machine that is the US criminal justice system, but for a different reason, the opposite reason - that it made people “lose faith” in the criminal justice system. Just as now, this reaction was wrong-headed in the extreme. Apart from the fact that the outcome was unremarkable given the real evidence - not the irrelevant litany of smut and ridiculous conjecture propagated by the tabloid media and swallowed as gospel fact by every perimenopausal woman watching cable TV – it broke no legal precedents nor established any new guidelines as to procedures of judicial practice.

Do any of those whooping, whistling and air-punching punters congregated outside the Maricopa County courthouse have any idea what is actually happening in the criminal justice system, how it is being tainted by prosecutors, judges and law enforcement departments being so aware of today’s media scrutiny and reporting of their minutest decisions and performance styles that they are either overly-concerned with not arousing public disapproval, or motivated by a lust for fame and resultant promotion or political advancement? These tendencies have intensified over the past thirty years because of government and media exaggeration about increases in crime rates, and the accompanying misinformation that society has become “soft on crime”. The criminal justice system has been falling over itself to convince the public that more criminals are being swept off the streets and that the incentives to commit crime are being greatly diminished by harsher sentences. The fact that the latter correlation is not borne out by statistics does nothing to assuage the impetus towards putting more people in prison for lesser crimes and for longer terms.

How many of those on the courthouse plaza, chanting “Justice for Travis!” in unison after the verdict was announced, understand that “justice for all” is being greatly undermined by a lucrative private prison industry insinuating itself into state budgets, with states guaranteeing private prison corporations full capacity for periods as long as twenty years, so that US incarceration rates are outrageously high, and sentences disproportionately long compared to other countries? The US incarcerates six times more people than the world average, with 25% of the world’s prison population situated in the US even though America constitutes only 5% of the world’s population. The motivation to put people in prison in the US now has less to do with making society safer than it has with lining the pockets of private prison executives. This situation began to take hold in the late 70’s and early 80’s, since when there has been a dramatically steep climb in the numbers of prisoners in the US, as well as a drastic lengthening of prison terms.

These two broad effects, media scrutiny of the criminal justice system and the move towards increasing numbers of private prisons, in turn affect the minutiae of criminal proceedings, corrupting the processes of arrest, charging, collection of evidence and trial. Such conditions increase the incentives to plant evidence or use coercive and even illegal interrogation methods on the part of law enforcement, for police officers to lie in court, for prosecutors to hide evidence, influence witnesses’ testimony, and overcharge crimes, and for judges to collude with prosecutors, all with the aim of assuring convictions and obtaining the longest sentences because the imperatives and the rewards are so great.

And putting the icing on the judicial cake is the increasingly widening and insidious contamination of any impending or future jury pool by a tabloid media that peddles simplistic, boiled-down fairy tales with good and evil archetypes, urging their audience to cheer and fawn at the heroes and heroines, and hiss and boo at the monsters and witches as in some tawdry, childish English pantomime. Murder trials have become a form of immature escapism onto which people project their personal insecurities and prejudices, attaching their anonymous and perhaps unacknowledged private anger and frustration - that in reality comes from their own lives - to a publicly embraced cause célèbre Like children who appropriately play and fantasize through their fears, anxieties and confusions in order to integrate them, these adults are inappropriately playing out emotions that would be better expressed and employed in their personal lives, not through the media-mythologized personal tragedies and misdemeanours of other heretofore anonymous individuals with whom they have no meaningful connection. Unlike for children, where imagining and role-playing in stories helps them to think, develop, mature and separate fantasy from reality, for adults, such misdirected and excessive investment of one’s negative psychic energy in media-distorted stories only serves to stunt emotional flexibility and grossly limit understanding of the complexities of human nature.

The public has been brainwashed into thinking that the criminal justice system does not do enough to punish offenders, so it is necessary for the media to take over and prosecute them in collaboration with the public. Members of the public are cajoled into thinking that each one of them is individually important, not only in making sure the defendant is punished – before he or she is tried, as well as after, but also in “supporting” the victim’s family and friends. Suddenly, anonymous individuals all over the country experience the adrenaline rush of feeling significant, that they can “be there for the family” and make sure the defendant gets his or her “just deserts”: character assassination, humiliation, ridicule, sexual exposure, negative interpretation of everything they have ever done in their life, from removing a cardigan to having the gall to be born with odd-looking eyes.

Such public prosecution by the masses is absolutely necessary and justified because years of detention before trial, separation from friends and family, loss of income, undergoing police investigation and public parading in a courtroom are not sufficient to expose and punish a person while they are supposedly not yet determined to be guilty. A person must be destroyed before they get to trial, just in case they “get off”, and to make sure that as many people know about their awfulness as possible so that hopefully, the jury members will know what the “facts” are and make the “right” decision. The public is complicit with media networks that saturate the airwaves and cyberspace with details about the defendant, however unsubstantiated, particularly during a trial, so that jurors who go home at night are unlikely to avoid “inadvertently” hearing or seeing something that has “need-to-know” value.  Even sequestered juries get family visits, and who knows when a hushed, private moment might not be advantageous for a little “updating” about what “everyone” thinks……….and expects. And if the defendant is acquitted because the jury is a bunch of “village idiots”, there will be the satisfaction of knowing that they can never live safely again in society. Lest they forget and need a reminder of their correctional-officer-substitute status, along with a boost of hate-serum, the public can rely on HLN to nudge them periodically with references to “what happened in Florida” and nostalgic montages of highlights from trials past, or clips from incriminating interviews of the defendant.

But these inconvenient, intrusive and complicated matters don’t concern Mary-Lou, the fine upstanding middle-aged citizen in shorts and T-shirt, milling on the courthouse plaza with her new trial-following buddies who she “met” on the In Session chat-room. They hover as near to Jane-Velez Mitchell and her padded microphone as possible, watching in hushed reverence as she interviews one of the ubiquitous Hughes clan, the leaders of the “close friends of Travis” – as well as the public Travis Alexander adoration cult - who have insinuated themselves, their flimsy feeling stories and subjectively interpretable video clips onto every show during HLN prime time. David Hughes declares vehemently, to the obediently-nodding affirmations of the devotees, that when the verdict was read Jodi had “no emotion” and that she was “smirking” at the jury as each one confirmed their decision. When Mary-Lou gets home and watches the verdict-reading and Jodi’s close-up on TV she will choose not to notice Jodi’s open-mouthed gasp on hearing “Guilty”, nor see her tear-welled eyes, lip-biting and quivering chin, glancing frightened and questioning at each juror in turn as they repeat “Yes.” Jodi is a monster - HLN and the Hughes have taught Mary-Lou that, so she is blind to Jodi’s nonexistent human reaction.

What is important is that Mary-Lou and her friends get a chance to declare their elation and allegiance to Travis’ family on camera - supporting this innately unremarkable group of victimized, bereaved but glamorized strangers with whom they have no connection whatsoever except via the unctuous tones of “Dr” Drew coaxing them to share their good vibes and despising ridicule of Jodi through their flat-screen TVs. They were so afraid they were going to get another “Casey Anthony”! Justice has finally “unfolded”…….. for Travis!

Any one of these “Justice for Travis” faithful could find themselves one day on the wrong side of the law, or in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps fitting the criteria or profile of a certain demographic group and be subjected to police corruption, deprivation of rights and distortion of interrogation-room statements. If they end up at trial they will be no more immune to media exposure and humiliation than the mugs who end up daily on Nancy Grace’s Facebook page for humping a sofa on the street because they forgot to take their meds, getting a bit sloshed while celebrating their son’s 19th birthday with him at the bar, or turning a blind eye to their daughter smoking a joint with her friends in the basement – with the music turned up a bit too loud.

These naïve and jubilant citizens are clinging to their misguided notion that the Jodi Arias Guilty verdict is a victory for the country, rather than what it really is: a common and banal, though gruesome story of interpersonal violence turned deadly, transformed into a carefully orchestrated and manufactured fake media epic, manipulating the masses and raking in billions in ratings-generated ad revenue. Until now commitment phobia, porkie-pie telling and the penetrability of doggy doors have not been social problems that anyone has marched on Capitol Hill about, but somehow these issues have gained more priority in the minds of a segment of the population than some very real threats to societal order and civility and to fair and due process.

The Jodi Arias murder trial is very significant, but not for the development or improvement of the criminal justice system. Nothing in the criminal justice system has been restored or edified. This trial has been significant only for its embodiment and encapsulation of a sick form of brainwashing and media-requisitioning, for its sucking of thousands of duped television and social media followers into a vortex of excessive and misdirected sympathy and emotion, and for its creativity in distorting and making up stories that evolve into unsubstantiated urban legends gracing every checkout magazine rack. Yes, this trial has been a landmark - in perpetuating the ongoing contamination and insidious destruction of the American criminal justice system. Mary-Lou and her friends have made their small but important contribution to this endeavour.

Perhaps this inane and dangerous syndrome can be succinctly summed up in a Twitter reply I received, just after the verdict, to a tweet I had posted a month before. I had responded to someone who was dismissing the effects of the tabloid media, and the person bided their time till they could throw a triumphant retort in my “face”:

Pitchforks (April 9^th): “That type of nonjournalism DOES matter in that taints future jury pools & incites general Pitchfork mentality against due process”

Reply (May 8^th): “ha...guess it won't matter now for that murdering nutbag Jodi Arias...hahahaha”   

So while Lou Ann and her internet trial-sisters hug and shed tears of joy, clutching their battered and dog-eared “Justice for Travis” posters, their rights and freedoms are trickling quietly down the drain, and maybe their young adult son has been stopped by the police while driving to get a pizza and is now sitting in a windowless room being yelled at by a police officer while another one tells him calmly they have a lot of evidence against him…. He is coming close to signing a false confession, just so he can get out of there and get an aspirin for his thundering headache. He doesn’t know that he could have left hours ago, he doesn’t know that innocent people need to do that thing that Nancy Grace condemns as suspicious - “lawyer up”……… he doesn’t know what his rights are, but he just needs to get out of there and home to mom, so at this point………..

But wait, we can’t go home yet – Jane Velez-Mitchell is coming our way, microphone thrusting, and she wants to know how we feel about the verdict! The answer is obvious, we have been well trained:

Justice has unfolded! Justice for Travis!!!

Pitchforks can be found at babelbooth.com, followed on Twitter @PitchforksPosts and on Blog Talk Radio at Routing Out, and be sure to like the facebook page. 

This is part two in a three part interview with Arizona Representative Cecil Ash concerning the very important topic of reforming the Arizona penal system and changing how sentencing is done in Arizona. Those who wish to help may contact Rep. Ash at his legislative office at 602-926-3160 (cash@azlag.gov), or through his webpage at www.cecilash.com 

Part One of my interview is available here. 

5) I know that part of your reasoning is based on the success of the Arizona's Safe Communities Act and the Pew's Public Safety Performance Project, but how do we rule out the reported drop in crime simply as a result of either looser enforcement or a population drop resulting from the poor job market? In other words, how do we make sure the benefits of Arizona's Safe Communities Act, and any proposed sentencing reforms, are real and not just nominal?

Rep. Ash: The success of the "Safe Communities Act" in Arizona has been measured and documented. It's produced 28% less revocations to prison over the last two years. But prison reform (or sentencing reform -- if you will) is occurring around the country with similar results in other jurisdictions.

The successes of the reforms have been apparent in many jurisdictions. They have saved money and reduced recidivism. Thirteen states just shut down prison facilities that are no longer needed. We are not going into uncharted territory; we are merely going into uncharted territory for Arizona.

6) What is your opinion of the private prison industry?

Rep. Ash: I don't blame anyone for trying to earn a dollar. And what other states do with their inmates is not my concern. But for Arizona, I believe private prisons are the wrong approach. No one will argue that the incarceration of criminals is not a legitimate function of government. The reason is that, like many government functions, it’s engaged in out of necessity, not for profit. But private prisons have not been shown to be either cheaper or safer than state-run facilities. In most industries you have the control of the market place so that the best goods or services are offered in the most economical fashion. So for example, a private school that can offer a good product at a fair price will be successful.

However, it is the consumers of the product that are making the decision to buy. With private prisons, however, the consumers of the product (the inmates) have no say in the purchase decision, which is made by the governor and the legislature. Inmates can't take their business and go elsewhere. The primary goal of a state institution should be public safety and reducing recidivism through rehabilitation. The primary goal of a private prison is profit. These cross-purposes make them suspect. Are they feeding prisoners adequately? Are they providing quality educational or behavior modification programs? Or are they just warehousing the inmates as commodities? Another concern is that private prisons have structured their contracts to take only those prisoners who are not problematic, either health-wise or risk-wise. The state screens the prisoners, classifies them, handles any disciplinary problems, and provides medical services.

In my opinion, in the long run it is a losing proposition for the state, and we should work harder to reduce our prison population rather than making our prisoners commodities.

7) Do you believe that there are lobbies (private prison industry, law enforcement organizations, attorneys, etc..) with an economic interest in keeping more Arizonans in custody whether or not that makes the public safer? Could that be a reason why the Arizona Republic said the reforms you proposed have "gotten nowhere this session"?

Rep. Ash: Of course, that's possible, but I have not seen it. Naturally, there are lobbyists for the private prison industry. That's to be expected. In my experience they are no different than lobbyists for any other industry. Nor have I seen any evidence of attorneys, law enforcement organizations or politicians who are advocating for private prisons for reasons other than a philosophical belief that they provide an alternative way of financing prisons.

Obviously, I don't know anyone's personal motivations other than my own. The small amount of donations made to their proponents has not seemed to me to be unusual.

8) Would you support legislation, similar to Minnesota's House File 3670 "The Post-traumatic Stress Bill", which would require judges to consider a veteran's combat history and PTSD in mitigation?

Rep. Ash: I have not studied the Minnesota bill, however, we have already within the last year or 18 months established "Veteran's Courts" as an acknowledgement that the considerations are different for those who have voluntarily subjected themselves to combat, or who have been trained to be combatants, than for typical criminals. I believe this is appropriate.

Our troops see some pretty nasty things. They are trained to do some bad things. That's war. We understand a lot more now than we did before. Unfortunately, there are those sitting in prisons now that were veterans of the Vietnam era who did not have the benefit of veterans' courts. For them there was no intervention. It would be nice to correct some of those cases.

In addition, we have a significant number of mental health cases in our jails and prisons. These, too, are there because of conditions not necessarily under their control. In both cases, supervised treatment may be more appropriate than punishment.

(Part Three here of my interview)

According to the National Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, about 80,000 cases of child sexual abuse are reported each year in the United States, and it is presumed that many more occur but are unreported. In court forensic psychology findings are important to determine if abuse has occurred. Knowing about why children are vulnerable to sexual abuse, the types of people who become abusers, and the outlook for victims of abuse can help in healing.

The public consensus is that most sexual crimes happen by strangers. This is actually a misconception perpetrated by the media; most offenders are either family or have some relationship with the immediate family. Also the belief that child sex offenders are likely to re-offend is also a misconception; there is a very low percentage of re-offenders and it is 25 percent lower than all other criminals.

Sexual abuse can be committed by kids and adults and because of variation in what constitutes as sexual abuse there can be a good number of false positives. While there is a high percentage of abusers who were abused as children themselves, that on its own does not predict the future. Men are almost always the offenders when it comes to child sexual abuse.

The type of person who sexually abuses children typically has a need to control another person in both body and mind. Most abusers know what they are doing is wrong but come up with denial mechanisms. Some adults find it easy to exploit a child's fears of getting into trouble or of being unloved by the people he or she cares about. As a result, abusers are able to continue victimizing a child as long as the child does not tell anyone about the abuse.

Some abusers tell the child that they will be punished for telling, or they may threaten to harm their victim's family if the child says anything to another adult. Older children may believe that their abuser is teaching them about sex or that they are in a romantic relationship with their abuser. The fact that abusers usually tell children anything to keep them quiet shows that they know the abuse is wrong.

People who were sexually abused as children sometimes become depressed and have difficulty having healthy, trusting relationships with family members and friends. Some turn to drugs for relief or become sexually active at an early age. Victims of abuse are often seen as damaged but with support from friends and family and with counseling or therapy, they can have a happy and healthy life.

Child sexual abuse is rarely an easy thing for victims and their families to work through. Abusers necessarily confuse and manipulate their victims. If abuse continues for an extended period of time, the victim can develop psychological and behavioral problems. Knowing how and why these problems developed can help families of abuse victims support their loved ones.

Mr. Solomon Kanu is a well-established immigration and criminal defense lawyer in Phoenix, Az.  He has graciously agreed to an interview regarding the overlap between criminal law and immigration law. 

Mr. Kanu:

1) If someone is charged with a misdemeanor, for example a DUI or assault, and they are not a US citizen, should they be concerned about ICE or possible deportation?

Oh yes. Even long term permanent residents can be put in Removal proceedings because of some criminal conviction that is as simple as DUI. Many times when a non-citizen is booked into a jail, ICE is notified and they can place an Immigration detainer (hold) on the defendant making it imperative that even if he or she bonds out of the jail, ICE picks them up. It is important to consult with an immigration lawyer with criminal defense knowledge or have your criminal defense lawyer retain an immigration lawyer for you right away.

2) What if someone is not a US citizen and they are convicted of a felony, will they automatically be deported?

No. It depends on the offense and other factors of the conviction. Even then, there are several forms of relief that may be available.

3) What should a person who is facing criminal charges, for example, they are in custody in the county jail, do if an ICE agent asks to speak with them?  Can they invoke Miranda rights and refuse to talk to an ICE agent?  Is there anything in immigration proceedings similar to a suspect's Miranda rights in a criminal matter? Does someone have the absolute right to consult with an attorney during an ICE investigation as they would in a criminal investigation?

They can refuse to speak and ask that their lawyer be present in any interview with ICE. Whatever information they give then remains a permanent record in their immigration file.

4) When should a person be concerned about his immigration status?  If ICE has put a hold on someone while they are in custody for a criminal matter, can they bond out? And what does the immigration court consider when determining release conditions?    

A person should be concerned about their immigration status before they get into any trouble at all. If they are in jail already and ICE puts a hold it means that bonding out is to be released to ICE. It is sometimes risky because they may not be able to attend the next court hearing with the criminal court if they are detained in the Immigration Detention Centers in Eloy, Florence etc.

5) How has Arizona's recent law on immigration, SB 1070, changed how you practice law?

I don’t think it has changed anything.

6) If you could tell a person who is facing criminal charges and is not a US citizen one thing, what would that be?

Do not take any chances or take any pleas until you have been advised of the possible immigration consequences of the offense/conviction.

Continue Reading