Archives

Uncategorized — No Comments
27
Jul 20

For some criminals, Halloween is the MOST DREADED time of the year!

 

For most of us, Halloween is the best time of the year! The trick-or-treating, getting candy, or giving out candy, perhaps even throwing a party. However, for many convicted sex offenders, it is the most dreaded time of the year. Sex offenders require curfews, mandatory “no candy” signs on their doors, group roundups, and even spot checks for compliance are all among the various techniques of control designed to protect the public.

Contrary to the belief that sex offenders should be feared on Halloween, sex offenders are actually not out kidnapping and molesting children on Halloween, and they never have been. In the published study “How Safe Are Trick-or-Treaters?: An Analysis of Child Sex Crime Rates on Halloween”, it proved that there is no Halloween spike in sex crimes against children. “The wide net cast by Halloween laws places some degree of burden on law enforcement officers whose time would otherwise be put to better use in addressing more probable dangerous events” (Levenson, 2009). Levenson’s theory, published in the journal, Sexual Abuse, examined crime trends over a 9 year period.

The researchers used data from the National Incident Base Reporting System to evaluate crime trends in 30 U.S states over a 9 year time frame. They didn’t find any increased rate of sexual abuse during Halloween or during the Halloween season. In fact, the number of reported incidents didn’t rise or fall after the police put in place these current procedures. However, unfortunately, empirical evidence seems to be incapable of bringing common sense to bear. Probation officers continue to put in place these ridiculous roundups and other once a year restrictions on sex offenders, instead of aiming their focus on the real threat to children, which I will cover in a moment.

All over the USA on Halloween, probation and parole officers will continue to require convicted sex offenders to not answer their doors, wear costumes, or decorate their homes on Halloween. They are ordered to post a “NO CANDY HERE” sign on their doors (like the one seen above). Others must attend special Halloween “counseling sessions” or “movie nights” where they are monitored. The restrictions are so widespread and varied, despite at least one federal court ruling that the restrictions were overly broad, and ridicule from late night TV pundits of some of the sillier Halloween restrictions.

The ridiculous crackdowns are a perfect example of what Scott Henson from the Grits for Breakfast Blog calls “security theater”, security theater is hyping and pretending to solve a threat that in reality is very remote, even to the point of diverting resources from policing activities like DUI enforcement that would protect much more people and actually save lives. So why Halloween, you might ask? After all, most sex offenders go after people they know, not after children they see in the street. Also, sex offenses are usually committed by men who have never been caught for a past sex offense. Furthermore, registered sex offenders usually feel branded and excluded so most of them are in hiding or stay on the down low.

The scare feeds into a deeper rooted cultural fear of the “bogeyman stranger”, this fear is memorialized in the Halloween legend of so called “tainted candy” that has endured despite countless attempts at correction. Benjamin Radford, of the Skeptical Enquirer discussed the persistence of the stranger danger myth: “despite email warnings, scary stories, and Ann Landers columns to the contrary, there have been only two confirmed cases of children being killed by poisonous candy on Halloween, and in both cases, the children were killed not in a random act by strangers but intentional murder by one of their parents.” (Radford, 2005).

The sad part about both myths is that children are taught a message of fear: Strangers, or even their own neighbors, might try to poison or molest them. I remember the first time I heard this myth, when I was 9 years old, and was trick-or-treating with my friend from school, and when we got home, naturally, I was eager to start eating my candy, however, my friend told me that she cannot eat the candy because her mother has to check it first. I remember being shocked, and thinking why on earth would anyone poison candy for trick-or-treaters? I didn’t believe it, after all, I had been trick-or-treating for years and I never was poisoned! So I just assumed her mother was crazy, but later on, I came to learn that this is a very common belief among most parents in the USA.

So, what is the real danger that children face on Halloween? It’s the one your mother always warned you about: getting hit by a speeding car while crossing a dark street. Car accidents kill about 8,000 children every year in the USA (Vieru, 2008), and children are more than twice as likely to be killed by a car while walking on Halloween night, then any other time of the year (Children’s National, 2020). So maybe next Halloween, show some compassion toward a publicly identified sex offender (or not, up to you!). BUT PLEASE, children, don’t get too friendly with cars!

References:

Levenson, J., & Chaffin, M. (2009, July 6). How Safe Are Trick-or-Treaters?: An Analysis of Child Sex Crime Rates on Halloween – Mark Chaffin, Jill Levenson, Elizabeth Letourneau, Paul Stern, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1079063209340143

Henson, S. (n.d.). Grits for Breakfast. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/

Radford, B. (2005, October 25). Candy Fears are Mere Halloween Phantoms. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://www.livescience.com/434-candy-fears-mere-halloween-phantoms.html

Vieru, T. (2008, December 11). WHO Says 830,000 Kids Are Killed Annually by Accident. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://news.softpedia.com/news/WHO-Says-830-000-Kids-Are-Killed-Annually-by-Accident-99829.shtml

(n.d.). Halloween Safety On and Off the Road. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://www.nsc.org/home-safety/tools-resources/seasonal-safety/autumn/halloween

(n.d.). Be Safe, Be Seen on Halloween. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://www.safekids.org/be-safe-be-seen-halloween

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
14
Oct 18

Guilty or not guilty?

Many people are guilty of being biased and can experience generic prejudice, especially when on jury duty. However, you don’t have to be a juror to experience this. There is generic prejudice even when just watching a trial on television, but that depends on what kind of a trial it is. For example, sexual abuse and homicide trials are the ones that seem to get the most attention. Those are especially difficult for jurors and it can be difficult to not be biased. For example, the moment we heard about a woman named Casey Anthony and her dead daughter, most of us said that she must be guilty of murdering her own child. We did this without listening to the facts of the case first. Personally, that is exactly what I thought (and still do). I don’t have children, but I used to work with kids, so I am protective.

Emotions can also be sparked during a homicide or sexual abuse case. We conclude right away that the person on trial must be guilty when it’s something so severe. This can be due to personal experience, or we know someone who went through that, we know a survivor, etc. In most cases, we are right to be biased and think that they must be guilty (which they are most of the time, I think), but there are cases where this would not be the truth. Sometimes there are people on trial who were accused of something so horrible, but end up being innocent. Generic prejudice can put an innocent person behind bars and it can make choosing the right jury a difficult task.

According to an article by Neil Vidmar, “Jurors do not approach the trial as empty receptacles who passively listen to the evidence and decide cases independently of their past experience, knowledge, and awareness of community norms” (Vidmar, 2003). Sexual abuse and homicide cases aren’t the only ones though. Generic prejudice also includes racism, which can affect someone of a different race/culture who is on trial. For example, many people established a negative view of Muslims after September 11th. Although only a particular group of muslims was responsible, an entire faith and people were punished for it. Completely innocent people who had nothing to do with the horrible tragedy that took place in 2001. “Research indicates that events that cause strong negative emotions, or that threaten people’s cultural world view, affect the way that these schemas operate” (Vidmar, 2003).

Basically, people who are racist or have strong views that they can’t put aside, would not make a great addition to a jury. A jury should be open minded and not have any strong views one way or another. If someone absolutely hates muslims, for example, and is supposed to be a juror on a case where an innocent muslim is being charged for a crime, how could they make sure that they give that person a fair trial? The same can be said if someone is accused of murder, and they are guilty, but a juror can’t find them guilty based on various reasons (same ethnicity, background, culture, etc.). It’s no wonder that selecting the right jury can take some time, but this is something to keep in mind if you are called in for jury duty.

 

 

References

Neil Vidmar. When All of Us Are Victims: Juror Prejudice and Terrorist Trials, 78 Chi.-Kent L.Rev.1143 (2003). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol78/iss3/10
Uncategorized — No Comments
03
Mar 17

Personality Disorders at the Interface of Psychiatry and the Law

The relationship between mental illness and causation of crime has been a popular topic among forensic psychiatrists and the justice system.  Pin pointing a direct cause for problematic behavior is mostly caused by a varying degree of personality disorders within legal contexts.  Personality disorders are defined as, “a type of mental disorder in which you have a rigid and unhealthy pattern of thinking, functioning, and behaving (Mayo Clinic, 2016).” Furthermore, the Criminology Resource Center explains criminal behavior in relation to four criteria: “First, the act is prohibited by law and punished by the state.  Next, it is considered to violate a moral or religious code and is considered punishable by a supreme spiritual being.  Third, the act violates norms of society or tradition and it punishable by a community.  Finally, it causes serious psychological stress of mental damage to the victim (Regis, 2017).” The context within this blog entry will address how personality disorders are implicated in forensic cases, as well as analyze how such disorders are viewed in different legal contexts (Johnson & Elbogen, 2013).

 

The evaluation process of different mental disorders is not viewed equally through forensic law.  At which point should flawed personality traits be considered an illness by a certified psychiatric diagnosis?  When is a personality disorder considered to cross the line into becoming an abnormal or severe condition?  Relatively, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used to systematically organize diagnostic categories of certain mental disorders.    Individuals must meet established criterion in order to be legally classified with that particular ailment.  The DSM6’s definition of personality traits as, “ensuring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and one’s self that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts (Johnson & Elbogen, 2013).”  Relatively, personality traits are considered to be mental disorders (clinically and by the law) IF they show a precedence of impairments to overall functioning, resemble faulty adaptive constituents, and present distress on a continuum.  In many cases, mental illnesses can revise the definition of the law relevant to particular criminal and civil aspects.  Clinical Neuroscience report declares that, “classification and specific definitions of personality disorders can have a major impact on how and when they serve as modifiers [for the law] (Johnson & Elbogen, 2013).”  Conclusively, the legal system’s perception of understanding the relationship between mental health and law is determined by considering the different mechanisms of functional impairment relative to a specific person.

 

Personality disorders play a significant role in legal assessments of criminal behavior.  Clinical conceptions of personality disorders attempt to explain the criminal justice system.  Additionally, the role of mental health in varying testimonies is determined by the severity of functional impairment as a causative agent of criminal behavior and other social controversies.  Mental illness has been considered the key to understanding and potentially eradicating crime.  What is the current state of acceptance for assessing personality disorders within a forensic context?  Essentially, the law develops a basis for which personality disorders hold practical significance for litigations within the court of justice.  Clinical Neuroscience justifies the code of law as, “a system that must be applicable across diverse situations and populations (Johnson & Elbogen).”  Additionally, the law addresses the impact that these disorders may have on individual’s behavioral constituents, as well as implicating that people are responsible for their own actions.  Where does the jury draw the line on what is tolerated or accepted behavior, or what crosses into a realm of symptoms from psychological distress?  Psychiatric components and the law describe behavior as either “within or outside the norm, and define behavior as acceptable or not.”

 

Personality disorders are affected by various social pressures and societal means.  Additionally, mental illness is a huge topic of interest in the study of criminal forensics because it reflects various causation principles for problematic behaviors.  It is crucial that the criminal justice system assesses the importance and reality of impaired mental health and its impact on behavior.  Although, the law must be consistent with their definition of mental illness as some criminals may claim to be mentally unstable as an excuse for their wrongdoings.  Contrarily, areas with increased crime rates typically have a high prevalence of personality dysfunction (Johnson & Elbogen, 2013).  In conclusion, mental health explains various concepts which underlie acts of criminal offense.  Forensic psychopathology is influenced by various neurological systems that coincide with discrepancies for the human mind, which results in the prevalence of certain behavioral traits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

APA CITATIONS

Johnson, S. C., Elbogen, E. B. (2013, June). Personality Disorders at the Interface of Psychiatry and the Law: Legal Use and Clinical Classification. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3811091/

Regis. (2017, January 6). What is the definition of criminal behavior? Retrieved March 3, 2017, from http://criminology.regis.edu/criminology-programs/resources/crim-articles/definition-criminal-behavior

Clinic, M. (2016). Mayoclinic. Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/personality-disorders/home/ovc-20247654

Skip to toolbar