By youHuge.com -Trade Show Displays August 07, 2012
Great staff and service. 5 stars all the way! ...read more
Causes of Crime: The Integrated Approach for the 21st Century Introduction Today’s criminal justice system is complex. There are many theories addressing causes of criminal behavior, with many overlapping concepts and no single theory seeming standing alone as providing an explanation for crime in every instance. With run-a-way numbers of inmates already in correctional facilities, criminologists and other criminal justice professionals are desperate to find preventative solutions for the additional adolescents being introduced to the system, as well as identifying effective approaches to reducing adult offender recidivism. In this article, six of the modern theories are discussed and some suggestions to the courts and corrections officials are provided. Causes of crime Biological Modern criminologists accept that all of the theories for crime can be placed into three categories: biological, psychological, and sociological theories (Roberson, 2011, p. 49). Biological theories revolve around the idea that individuals are predisposed to commit crime because the juvenile has inherited certain biochemical and genetic factors and is predisposed to commit crime (Roberson, 2011, p. 49). Although biological theories are more popular in Europe (Roberson, 2010, p. 63), its momentum is picking up in the United States. It is argued that the biological causes for crime may be the result contaminants introduced into the body through ingestion or otherwise, or is the fault of flawed genetics (Roberson, 2010, p. 63). Biological theorists believe one day they will provide concrete, simple, and cause-and-effect answers to the complicated crime problem (Roberson, 2010, p. 63). It would be amazing if one day crime could be eliminated by a pill. If that future is possible, the biological explanation is likely to play an increased role in the understanding of criminal behavior (Rafter, 2008, p. 240). It was predicted nearly a century ago that this century would become the “century of biology” (Rafter, 2008, p. 240). It can now be described as the century of biocriminology (Rafter, 2008, p. 240). Since the advent of DNA exploration the realization of identifying and curing possible biological causes for crime is more possible than ever previously conceived. Psychological Psychological theories address the conditioning processes of individuals (Roberson, 2011, p. 49). There are two major types of psychological theories: psychoanalytic theory and the social learning theory (Roberson, 2011, p. 49). The psychoanalytic theory is based on Freud’s components: id, ego, and superego (Roberson, 2011, p. 49). The drive or impulse to fill immediate gratification comes from the id. Some cases of delinquency acts such as retail shoplifting or burglary can be blamed on the id (Roberson, 2011, p. 49). The psychoanalytical approach identifies traumatic experiences during the early stages of child development which prevents the ego and superego from developing properly (Roberson, 2011, p. 49). Left uncheck, the id commits crime that would otherwise be restrained. Meanwhile, the social learning theory attempts to explain why some individuals cannot conform to the rules, laws, and mores imposed by society (Roberson, 2011, p. 49). Conceptually, juveniles learn positive ways to accomplish their goals through positive role models within their home and community (Roberson, 2011, p. 49). However, if the juvenile lacks positive role models, the juvenile may learn from his or her victimization that violence is the only effective method of coping with frustrations or dealing with people (Roberson, 2011, p. 49). Early intervention is the best approach to correcting the errors bad habits learned by these juvenile and violent offenders. Sociological theories Sociological theories are the same for both juvenile delinquency and adult violent offenders. They include: strain theory, labeling theory, and many social control theories (Roberson, 2011, p. 55). Strain theory The Strain theory developed from observations about offenders who indulged in excessive pleasures or was subjected to additional strain often times resulted in criminal conduct (Roberson, 2011, p. 55). An example of that might be one with a gambling addiction, who resorts to theft to obtain funds needed for additional gambling. According to strain theorists, most people are good (Roberson, 2011, p. 55). However, excessive pressures placed on them by society causes some of them to commit criminal acts (Roberson, 2011, p. 55). Labeling theory Considerable evidence suggests that social sanctions can lead to self-labeling causing amplified deviance (Siegel, 2012, p. 254). Some children negatively labeled by their parents can grow up suffering from a variety of antisocial problems, including school failure and criminal behavior (Siegel, 2012, p. 254). Empirical evidence further supports the belief that “labeling” can play a significant role in persistent offending later in life (Siegel, 2012, p. 254). Although labels may not cause adolescents to initiate criminal behaviors, experienced criminals are significantly more likely to continue offending if they believe they are viewed in negative light: they now identity themselves as damaged needing to live-out a damaged existence (Siegel, 2012, p. 254). Maintaining a damaged identity after official labeling may, along with other negative social reactions from society, produce a “cumulative disadvantage,” provoking some repeating their negative behaviors on and on (Siegel, 2012, p. 254). Some people accept the label and then become deviant matching the behavior of their given label (Roberson, 2010, p. 63). For example, if we consider a child a bad influence he may subconsciously accept the label, and thereafter act as a bad influence on others. The labeling theory deals not with crime causation, but with the effects of labels, or stigmas, on offender behavior (Roberson, 2010, p. 63). The theorists contend that society, when it places a label on its members the members become stigmatized leading to negative self-image (Roberson, 2010, p. 63). The most common source of these stigmas comes from actions taken by the courts of law, some agencies, family and supervisors, and/or the youth’s peers (Roberson, 2010, p. 63). For instance, once an offender is sent to prison for a felony, he receives a label of being a felon, a con (short for convict), or an ex-con after released. It is common for released offenders to feel stigmatized by their records, which may prevent good employment or housing opportunities. Social disorganization theory The social disorganization theory was first popularized by the work of two sociologists in the 1920s, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (Siegel, 2012, p. 196). They are credited with linking life in disorganized, transitional urban areas to neighborhood crime rates (Siegel, 2012, p. 196). They believed foreign-born immigrants and relocated Southern families who moved to Chicago occupying older sections of the city were to blame for Chicago’s crime problem (Siegel, 2012, p. 196). As the older sections of the city started deteriorating physically the conditions and the crime problems worsened (Siegel, 2012, p. 196). The belief intensified as the city’s wealthy and affluent also perceived (whether correct or not) that people from Europe and the rural South were morally dissolute and prone to crime (Siegel, 2012, p. 196). At that time, crime and delinquency were effectively tied to changing urban environment and ecological development of the city (Siegel, 2012, p. 196). They saw that Chicago had divided into distinct neighborhoods of the classes, some affluent, and others suffered with extreme poverty (Siegel, 2012, p. 196). These poverty-ridden, transitional neighborhoods suffered high rates of population turnover, and therefore lacked long-term residents willing to remain and fend off crime groups from their neighborhoods (Siegel, 2012, p. 196). These urban areas were believed to be the spawning ground of young criminals (Siegel, 2012, p. 196). Because the continuity of conventional neighborhood traditions and institutions became broken, it was argued that the children would feel displaced, without a strong set of values (Siegel, 2012, p. 196). Much of Shaw and McKay’s findings still hold up today. Modern theorists believe: ·Crime rates are sensitive to destructive social forces that operate in low-class urban neighborhoods; ·Environmental factors are the root causes of to many crime; ·Crime is a constant fixture in poverty areas regardless of the neighborhood’s ethnicity or racial makeup; and ·Erosion of social control in disintegrating neighborhoods are primary causes of criminal behavior. (Siegel, 2012, p. 196) Effective tools used to reverse the crime rates associated with eroding neighborhoods in the past involved informal surveillance and direct intervention (Warner, Beck&Ohmer;, 2010, pp. 356-357). Today, Warner, Beck and Ohmer (2010) recommend restorative justice among the traditional approaches. They believe restorative justice, peacemaking criminology are better because they build communities through fostering cooperative solutions to crime and justice problems when both parties are willing to participate (Warner, Beck&Ohmer, 2010, pp. 357). Rational choice theory In another social theory, the rational choice theory was identified by Cornish and Clarke (1986) proposing that offenders weigh the opportunities, costs and benefits of particular crimes (Hagan, 2011, p. 101). They argued individuals operating under the rational choice theory are not purely rational in their decision making, but rather that they do consider the costs and benefits (Hagan, 2011, p. 101). The rationale was predicated upon the same concepts taught by Cesare Beccaria that man sought pleasure and avoided pain (Hayward, 2007, p. 234). To prevent crimes from occurring in these situations, policy makers and the criminal justice system must make the commission of crime rationalized by offenders less rewarding by increasing the certainty and severity of punishment (Hagan, 2011, p. 101). In the past, decreasing the opportunity to commit crime has been viewed an important means to deterring crime and increasing prevention (Hagan, 2011, p. 101). During the 1990s, themes such as “just deserts”, “three strikes and you’re out”, and mandatory sentencing policies reflected the deterrent principles former policy makers acclaimed – that tougher laws were needed to deter criminal activity (Hagan, 2011, p. 101). However, due to increasing crime rates and growing recidivism many criminologists are returning to many of classical schools of criminology (Hayward, 2007, p. 235). Examples of a crime where rational choice may have been applied can be DVD piracy and illegal trade of counterfeit auto components (Hayward, 2007, p. 238). Evidence-based intervention for offenders Juvenile status offenses Juvenile status offenses are those which made illegal to the offender simply because of the offender’s age (Elrod & Ryder, 2011). For instance, both the purchase and consumption of alcohol and cigarettes are prohibited by juveniles and young adults. In many states the legal drinking age for alcohol is 21. For cigarettes, that can vary from state to state but in most instances one must to 18 or older to purchase them. There is argument for and empirical evidence has shown a connection exists between status offenses more serious offenses (Elrod & Ryder, 2011, p. 370). Juvenile delinquency and criminal acts It has been shown that chronic juvenile offenders become chronic adult offenders (Siegel & Welsh, 2012, p. 66). This concept is known among criminologists as the continuity of crime (Siegel & Welsh, 2012, p. 66). For instance, the Pennsylvania cohort study followed a ten percentage sample to the age of 30. Seventy percent of those sampled who had chronic problems in their adulthood also had experienced chronic problems during their adolescence (Siegel & Welsh, 2012, p. 66). As the adult offender’s life deteriorates, the theory is that the behavior grows more severe leading to violent crimes. It is better to deal with offenders while their activities are as minor as status offenses than it is to deal with the offender who has become labeled a career criminal. Intervention by the courts, juvenile probation officers and adult probation and parole officials at the earliest stages possible is the best prevention strategy against the commission of future crimes. Recommendations Whether a youth status offender or an adult violent offender, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective at reducing recidivism among both categories (Clark, 2011, p. 62). The engineers of the CBT approach believe that most people can learn about their own erred thoughts and behaviors, and can change their lives for the better (Clark, 2011, p. 62). Every person’s thoughts are said to be the product of their own experiences (Clark, 2011, p. 62). These experiences often influence and trigger a person’s behavior, both positive and negative (Clark, 2011, p. 62). Where research has shown laws enacted to levy severe punishment or to serve as a deterrent has had little positive impact at lowering recidivism, therapeutic approaches using skill building, counseling, and other services are more effective – as high as 13% (Clark, 2011, 62). In order to do such it is important that respectful interactions are modeled during training sessions, and participants learn skills such as reflective listening, re-framing, nonviolent communication and balancing negative statements with positive statements to promote such interaction (Warner et al, 2010, p. 362). Another approach to reducing recidivism is the restorative justice model instead of punishment. Restorative justice can include the payment of restitution, community service and the like. Offenders should take responsibility for their behavior by making restitution, and by being reintegrated into the community to serve (Warner et al, 2010, p. 362). This approach in lieu of punishment teaches respect. “Respect for all,” as Howard Zehr states, “even those who are different from us, even those who seem to be our enemies. Respect reassures us of our interconnectedness but also our differences. Respect insists that we balance concern for all parties” (Warner et al, 2010, p. 362). If victims and offenders feel good about the restoration process, the sense of justice for both is appreciated. Moreover, the offender can learn from the experience and avoid the behavior in the future. · Reference: Clark, P M. (2011). “An Evidenced-Based Intervention for Offenders”Corrections TodayFeb2011 73(1): 62-63. Elrod, P., & Ryder, R. S. (2011).Juvenile justice: a social, historical and legal perspective(3 ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Barletts Publishers, LLC. Hagan, F. E. (2011).Introduction to criminology: theories, methods and criminal behavior.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Hayward, K. (2007). “Situational Crime Prevention and its Discontents: Rational Choice Theory Versus the ‘Culture of Now’”Social policy & administrationJune 2007 41(3): 232-250. Rafter, N. H. (2008).The criminal brain: understanding biological theories of crime. New York: New York University Press. Roberson, C. (2011).Juvenile justice: theory & practice.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Siegel, L. J. (2012).Criminology(11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth – Cengage Learning. Warner, B. D., Beck, E., & Ohmer, M. L. (2010). “Linking Informal Social Control and Restorative Justice: Moving Social Disorganization Theory Beyond Community Policing”Contemporary justice reviewDec 2010 13(4): 355-369. ...read more
By Jensen Investigations September 13, 2012
Evidence Favorable to the Accused By Jason K Jensen, Private Investigator Part I – U.S. Supreme Court Case Briefs A. Brady Evidence – Negating Guilt of Accused or Affecting Level of Punishment Title:Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) State of facts:In separate trials Brady and a co-defendant were each convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Unbeknownst to Brady, the prosecution withheld a written statement by the codefendant confessing to be responsible for the killing even though a request to the prosecutor was made by Brady’s attorney. Despite the request, the prosecutor failed to disclose the statement and at the time of the punishment phase, the jury convicted the defendant to death over his argument against the capital punishment because he did not commit the killing. After his sentencing, Brady learned about the confession and post-conviction remedies were sought asking for a new trial. The Maryland Court of Appeals only reversed the sentencing phase, not the guilt phase finding that the failure only affected the punishment phase, not the guilt phase. Issue:Whether the failure to disclose evidence favorable to the favorable to Brady entitled him to a new trial, where favorable evidence existed and was not disclosed? Decision:The United States Supreme Court held that the failure of the prosecutor to disclose evidence favorable to Brady deprived him of due process where Brady had requested it. He was entitled to a new sentencing. Reasoning:Society wins when criminal trials are fair. The administration of justice suffers when the accused is mistreated. "The United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts." When a prosecutor withholds evidence contrary to his demands, if it had been made available, would tend to clear him or reduce the penalty helps shape a trial that bears heavily on the defendant. The prosecutor cannot act in the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not comport with standards of justice. Dissenting Opinion:Justice Harlan dissenting felt that the due process violation could have extended to the guilt phase as well since it was the jury’s province to decide both the guilt and punishment phases of a First Degree Murder in Maryland. B. Brady Evidence – Evidence Impeaching Witnesses Title:Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) Statement of facts:Giglio filed a motion for a new trial upon disclosure that a material witness was promised leniency in exchange for testimony against Giglio. At the hearing, the Assistant Attorney General who presented the case to the grand jury admitted promising the witness immunity for his testimony. However, he did not inform the Assistant Attorney General of that promise who prosecuted Giglio. Issue:Whether the prosecutor’s failure to disclose a witnesses’s promise of leniency entitled the defendant to a new trial? Decision:[Expanding Brady] Regardless of the prosecutor’s lack of knowledge or good faith, Giglio was deprived of due process because the prosecutor has the duty to provide the accused all material evidence to the jury was not fulfilled. Reasoning:The Governmental nearly relied exclusively on the testimony of the witness who received leniency. The Court emphasized was it not for the testimony of that witness, who struck the deal with the prosecutor, there would not have been a conviction or even an indictment. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the deal was relevant to the credibility of the witness and therefore, favorable evidence for the accused. The prosecutor should have provided it to the accused. Dissenting opinion:There was no dissent. Part II – State Court Case Analyses In theGigliocase, the Supreme Court explained that the deal was relevant to this issue of the credibility of the witness. Relevant evidence is that evidence which is material to the case and is on point to the issue at hand. (Lee, 2007). That evidence was exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is that evidence which tends to favor the defendant as to guilt or to mitigate punishment.BradyandGiglioare cases that outline the prosecutor’s duties beyond his or her responsibility to prosecute. These cases stand for the proposition that the prosecutor also has a duty to ensure the sanctity of a fair trial for the defendant. The prosecutor is required to make sure he or she has the evidence that tends to proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that he or she also has a duty to think in terms of what evidence would favor the defendant and ensure it is provided to the accused. The responsibilities recognized in these two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have carried over to the State court systems in all fifty states as well as the inferior federal courts. When researching the issue of case law relevant to evidence favorable to a defendant, one must be sure to research both lines of decisions, state and federal rulings for your jurisdiction. In Wyoming, theBradyStandard can be found inDavis v. State, 47 P.3d 981 (Wyo. 2002). In a case practically mirroringGiglio, the Wyoming Supreme Court restated that the prosecutor has a duty to disclose impeachment and exculpatory evidence to the accused even if not requested by the defendant. It further clarified that this duty included evidence only known by the police and not to the prosecutor. The Court said it was the duty of the prosecutor to learn of any exculpatory evidence from the police. In this particular case, since the witness was key for the conviction, and because a tape recording of the witness using drugs was withheld, the Court found that it wasBradymaterial and the nondisclosure violatedBrady. Therefore, the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remand for a new trial. In Colorado, theBradyStandard can be found inPeople v. Dist. Ct., City&Cty. of Denver, 808 P.3d 831 (Colo. 1991). In that case, the trial court awarded the defendant’s attorney’s fees from public funds. In its order, the trial court stated, in the alternative, if attorney’s fees were not paid, then an order of dismissal would be the sanction for the prosecutor’s failure to provide the defendant withBradyimpeachment evidence. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the trial court explaining that the award of attorney’s fees is not authorized in Rule 16 (the discovery rule) and further stated that a dismissal would be an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court outlined that the only available remedy for a discovery violation could be an order to permit the discovery, to grant a continuance, and a prohibition of the wrongfully withheld evidence by the prosecutor. As the two briefed cases above, and the following state cases all illustrate, Government bears the unified duty to search for and disclose to the defendant evidence that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, tends to impeach the Government’s witnesses, and that affect the degree of punishment of the defendant if convicted. What these cases also show is that duty at times gets violated. In each of these cases, the discovery of theBradyviolation occurred after the conviction. The discovery can happen by accident or by an independent search. Private investigators, who specialize in criminal defense, can be hired to search for exculpatory evidence, both negating guilt or impeaching witnesses. The private investigator accomplishes the by consulting with the defendant’s attorney or by conducting a confidential interview with the accused, by reviewing the relevant charge or charges, by inspecting the crime scene, by looking for surveillance cameras near the crime scene, by canvassing for other witnesses, by submitting Government Records requests to local, state or federal agencies, etc. Not every case requires hiring a private investigator. However, a private investigator is encouraged for major crimes because the stakes are high. Also, a private investigator is encouraged in minor offenses because the cracks are bigger because the case is less important to the Government than major crimes. References: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Tillman v. State, 128 P.3d 1123 (Utah 2005). Davis v. State, 47 P.3d 981 (Wyo. 2002). People v. Dist. Ct., City & Cty. of Denver, 808 P.3d 831 (Colo. 1991). State v. Gardner, 885 P.2d 1144 (Idaho App. 1994) Lee, G.D. (2007).Practical Criminal Evidence. Pearson-Prentice Hall. Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 401. ...read more
By Jensen Investigations April 13, 2011
Juvenile Justice – Identifying the Root of Drug-Related Offenses A. The Role Alcohol and Other Drugs Play in Juvenile Crimes and How Often Drugs Are Factors. According to a recent study, alcohol and other drugs play a major role in juvenile offenses. The report suggests that as much as 80 percent of juvenile offenders are drunk or high, or both when they were arrested. According to the recent article published by the Columbia University, four out of five arrested teens and children who were arrested as a result of committing crimes were under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, tested positive, were arrested committing an alcohol or drug offense, or admitted being addicted. This 177 page report entitledCriminal Neglect: Substance Abuse, Juvenile Justice and The Children Left Behindwas the result of a five year study of over 2.4 million juvenile arrests. In it, the Chairman of the National Center of Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) accused thejuvenile justice systemof writing off these young Americans instead of helping them. That allegation is based on the fact that of those 2.4 million cases reviewed, only 68,600 individuals received drug or alcohol treatment of the 1.9 million juveniles who allegedly committed drug-related offenses. This report claims that only 3.6 percent of these youth offenders receiveddrug and alcohol treatmentas a condition of their disposition. For such an alarming high rate of drug or alcohol abuse by youth offenders, the low figure of actual treatment is just as alarming. If we in the juvenile justice system are aware of this disparity, it is our duty to make treatment more available to offenders as we strive to avoid these youth offenders from becoming career adult offenders. (CASA, 2004) These are markedly high numbers, in that "four out of five" cannot be dismissed as merely coincidental. According to theAmericans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the U.S. Department of Justice's interpretation of that act,drug addictionand alcoholism are both qualified disabilities under the law, (28 C.F.R. § 35.104(1)(B)(ii)), thus the formation of theDrug Courtsfor adults. Where are the drug courts for our youth offenders? If they say, "Our children are our future," then we must strive to ensure our future does not become bleak. If these youth offenders are addicted to drugs or if they are alcoholics, according to the ADA, services or other reasonable accommodations must be made available to these offenders in the course of their treatment. (28 C.F.R. § 35.101, et seq.) B.The Juvenile Offender's Apparent Drug of Choice. Our modern juvenile justice system and even thejuvenile courtitself was created in our society's response to assist our wayward children from become career criminals. Society would rather have a youngster become a productive member of the community (Territo, Halsted, and Bromley, 2004). The most effective way to accomplish this goal is to treat the root of the problem, it is not a focus on guilt or innocence, rather thejuvenile courtsare to focus on rehabilitation. It would appear that thedrugs and alcohol abuseby these youth offenders is the root of their criminal conduct. According to the Columbia University report (cited above), of those 80 percent youth offenders who were arrested under the influence of drugs or alcohol, 92 percent of them tested positive for marijuana and 14.4 percent tested positive for cocaine. Traditionally, marijuana along with alcohol and tobacco are considered to be "gateway drugs." The "gateway drug theory" is that theory describing the phenomenon in which an introduction to drug-using behavior through the use of tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana is related to subsequent use of otherillicit drugs. (Melbourne, 1997). Statistics show that youth offenders between 12 to17-years of age with no other problem behaviors, those who drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes at least once in the past month are 30 times likelier to smoke marijuana than those who didn't. (CASA, 1997) Among youth offenders between 12 to 17-years of age with no other problem behaviors, those who used all three gateway drugs (cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana) in the past month are almost 17 times likelier to use another drug like cocaine, heroin, or LSD. (CASA, 1997) It's a scary prospect, that just because someone was a social drinker or enjoyed smoking a cigarette, he was posturing himself to possibly become adrug addict. These gates are prime targets for early intervention and prevention strategies with our reported youth offenders. There is also a cleardose-response relationshipbetween the quality and frequented use of gateway drugs and the likelihood of subsequentillicit drug use. It would stand to sound reasoning that preventing the use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana has or would have a profound effect on subsequent criminality. C. The Crimes Juvenile Offenders Are Committing; Differences from Adults. There are two categories that youth offenses fall under: Delinquencyoffenses andstatus offenses. We will start with a review of status offenses. "Status offenses" are relatively minor. They are offenses that are defined largely by the youth offender's age. Examples of these are curfew, possession of cigarettes or alcohol or their consumption. Delinquency offenses are the same as the crimes that would be committed if committed by an adult offender. Any crime that would be committed by a youth is a delinquency offense. Some examples are assaults, vandalism, anddisorderly conduct. (Territo, Halsted, and Bromley, 2004) Drug-related offenses are tracked by theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "Drug-related Offense" are crimes not limited to trafficking cases, where someone is charged with possession of an illicit drug or with an attempt to distribute. Directly, the possession, distribution and/or their arrangement of trafficking of illicit drugs is a major problem all by itself. But the HHS also tracks other crimes in-directly affected by drugs. These types of crimes include acts of violence, includingdomestic violence,retail theft, and yes even rape. (HHS, 2000) There, if we can attribute the youth offender's crime troubles to a drug problem. Who or what is responsible for the youth offenders' drug problem. That is problem which apparently lies in the hands of the youth offender's parental relationships. I would think it comes from the way their own parents handled thedrug and alcoholuse themselves. These parents usually taught their own kids to abuse tobacco, drugs or alcohol. When the parents of youth offenders become responsible for teaching their children how to commit drug-related crimes, then the problem becomes the community's to correct before that behavior becomes a career. As I see it, there are differences between adult drug-addicts and youth drug-addicts. First, the youth offender has not had the opportunity to abuse the drugs nearly as long, or had not "experimented" as broadly as an adult may have exposed himself/herself to. Secondly, a youth offender's mind is likely more fragile than an adult's, because it is likely still under development. As I see it, if we as a society is ever going to get control over a growing drug-addiction-crisis, the approach will be through education and awareness in the context described above. As parents, being aware of the problem gives us increased understanding and a desire to preventfuture generationsof addicts. ...read more
By Jensen Investigations July 14, 2010
Many criminals obtain cell phone records illegally. The criminals set up fake accounts either online or by calling and pretending to be the account holder and getting information. But, there are a few ways to obtain the cell phone records legally. ...read more
Today's media has created a lot of buzz about fraud investigators. Television shows and movies make this look like a cool career with a lot of action. While the actual job may not be quite as action packed as the media portrays, it can be a great career with a steady income. ...read more