Posted by admin in Criminal Justice News Nov 22nd, 2009

Students at UC Santa Cruz have been occupying the administration building (Kerr Hall) at the school for the past three days. According to several of the the students (over 370 are involved in the protest) there is no way they are going to give up leading many to suspect that the police will soon begin forcibly removing them.  This all started after the regents board at the school approved a 32 % increase in tuition. The students are concerned that they simply won’t be able to afford going to school there any longer as that is a very large increase for them to absorb.  The school says they have no plans to negotiate with the students and have already warned them that they will have the police come and clear the students out if they don’t leave on their own.  The students expect that will happen very soon. Actually, this protest is one of several demonstrations going on in California universities this past week. On Friday night, 41 protesters occupying a building at UC Berkley were arrested and cited for trespassing (and quickly released).  On Thursday, 52 students were arrested at UC Davis after they refused to leave the school’s administration building where they were also protesting tuition increases.  UCLA’s Campbell Hall was also occupied for several hours this past Thursday by protesting students.  The tuition hikes will start in January when they rates will go up 15% which is more than double the average public tuition hike last year. On average, tuition and fees at the nation’s universities increased by 6.5%.  An interesting note is that students that qualify for financial aid that have families making less than $70,000 per year will have their tuition covered.  Which makes me wonder if the reason why the tuition increases are happening isn’t really being totally driven by the fact that they can charge more and have Federal grants and funding cover the costs for a majority of the students.  The schools adamantly reject that stating that they are being forced to raise the tuition to keep the university open.  In any event, it will be very interesting to follow these protests over the next couple of weeks.

Posted by admin in Criminal Justice News Nov 12th, 2009

If you are found guilty of indecent exposure among other possible punishments you will most likely find yourself on the registered sex offender list. Here is a map of the U.S. with the number of registered sex offenders by State:

There are several crimes that will end up causing you to get your name added to the registered sex offender list, one crime is indecent exposure and it certainly is not the worst possible offense that will land you on this list.  However, it’s an example of one that seems to be very subjective.  Last month (October 2009) there were a couple of cases which I think are interesting as they point out that what everyone thinks or assumes is indecent varies pretty wildly. While this can lead to interesting discussions and even heated debates, the reality of the situation is that as a matter of law whether an act is indecent or not varies by State and to a wide degree by the people investigating the situation. Take for example two recent cases that were in the news and posted all over the Internet.

The first case is the case of Eric Williamson, the Virginia man that was arrested for making breakfast and coffee in the nude… okay that’s not the whole story. Apparently he was sipping coffee in clear view of a window that faced a public sidewalk.  A mother and child were walking by, took offense and called the police.  This resulted in the police arresting Williamson and charging him with indecent exposure.  Williamson was in the privacy of his own home true enough, but does that really protect him from an indecent exposure charge?  Would a reasonable person do what he did?  I don’t think so.  It’s one thing to drink coffee naked in an interior room of the house completely out of the view of anyone passing by your house and quite another to stand in front of your window in plain view of the public, butt naked sucking down your favorite home-brewed java.

So I did a little bit of research on the Internet as believe me this could go on for days (the research) if I didn’t cut it off at some point.  Let’s just say there are thousands of cases of indecent exposure on the Internet to read about.  Anyway here is the most basic legal definition I could find:

Indecent exposure is a crime that is defined as exposing one’s genitals or socially deemed “private parts” (such as behind or breasts) in a public place where others are present and may witness the act. A person who commits indecent exposure does so intentionally with an understanding that his/her conduct will likely alarm and offend others.

Well, that’s a tough one… Did Williamson intentionally expose himself?  Does lack of common sense come intoplay here at all?  In a case like this how does one exactly prove that Williamson had intent to expose himself to the mother and child walking by the house.  Well, I still think he is guilty because a reasonable person would close the blinds, drapes, etc. and simply just not do what this jackass did.  I also just have a problem with giving a person a pass because they are a moron.

In a another recent case (October 2009) we have the story of a 33 year-old Pennsylvania man, Michael Parziale. Well if all cases were this clear, everything would be a lot easier. Okay so this idiot allegedly takes pleasure in sitting in his car in public places with his door open and then masturbating while women walk by (well he also is allegedly perfectly comfortable walking up to women and doing the same thing). Okay, so that is a clear case of indecent exposure. This guy is clearly exposing his private parts intentionally in a public place and should be quite certain that this will both alarm and offend just about anyone with a brain. The only question here is… Why?  What can cause someone to behave in such a bizarre way?  There can be no doubt that the indecent exposure laws were clearly written to protect the public from people like Parizale.

So in this sometimes crazy world where it can be pretty hard to shock people where do we draw the line?  Do we arrest everyone that comes close to the line (like Williamson) or do we just go after the people that completely blow past the line and blatantly violate the law (like Parizale)?  Obviously, we don’t really have to choose… Breaking the law is breaking the law and there is no such thing as only breaking the law a little bit.  Like many things though it is not 100% black and white and there is at least a little bit of gray involved.  I guess in either case the judge or jury will take the decision in the cases of Williamson and Parizale.  The moral of the story is if in doubt… throw on a pair of pants, a robe, ANYTHING!

Posted by admin in Criminal Justice News Nov 1st, 2009

We got a lot of response regarding crime facts in the U.S. so we decided to continue the series and to add some statistics that looked into each State and compared violent crimes on a per capita basis. This resulted in us coming across the following chart at the U.S. Census Bureau:

Take a look at Washington D.C.  that’s something!  It’s interesting to note where our nation’s capital ranks in the area of violent crime.  Is that odd?  It seems so to us.  In any event, there are quite a few States that are considerably worse off than others in this one aspect (not that there aren’t potential perils anywhere you live).