Five Myths about Crime Today

Myself and a prosecutor (I’m a criminal defense lawyer working in a public defender office in Minnesota) spoke to a group of mystery writers last night.  The prosecutor was actually the featured speaker although as we got into issues of criminal justice, the questions flew at both of us.  Here are some of them:

1.  We should just put the criminals in prison and throw away the keys.

Easy to say and it certainly makes us feel good.  People have the impression that most criminals are “getting away” with their crimes and aren’t paying the penalty.  The media feed this idea since they only report the few cases where someone does beat the system.  The reality is that the majority of people charged with crimes are found guilty and do pay the penalty.

Question is, what should the penalty be?

My prosecutor friend brought up several recent empirical studies that show short, intensive punishment combined with rehabilitation efforts tend to have the best results.  Why?

Putting aside the serial murderers and career criminals, I believe it’s because simply locking people away can be counter-productive.  For many of them, the hardest part is when the doors to the jail slam shut.  After months or even years, the deterrent effect of incarceration drops off.  So, it makes sense to send people for a limited amount of time–with supervised probation and release afterward.

2.  Criminals will never change–there’s no hope they’ll reform themselves.

Some psychologists maintain that criminals are people who have chosen to live a life of crime and will continue to do so no matter what we do to them.  I’m not sure this is true all the time.  I think that most criminals balance the risks of getting caught with the rewards of crime.  I believe some can be persuaded to go straight.  The best persuasion is a combination of prison and probation.

3.  Many criminals are drug addicts who commit crime to feed their habits. No.  I would say in my own experience that the majority of crimes are committed when people are high–by far alcohol is the most prevalent–when they commit crimes but they’re not doing the crime to make money to supply themselves with drugs.  And for all the attention to dangerous drugs, alcohol still remains the most widely abused chemical substance that leads to crime.

4.  The crime news in the papers never seems to end–crime is up.  It’s definitely down, especially since a peak during the 1980’s as measured by the FBI.  Violent crime and all types of crime are down significantly.  Why does it seem the opposite?  The news media report criminal acts–not the drop in crime.

5.  “Get tough on crime” laws and longer prison sentences deter crime. I don’t think so.  In my experience dealing with defendants charged with crime, the last thing they think about is getting caught and certainly, they never think about penalties.  The one area that’s different is in drinking and driving crimes.  People do think about that when taking another drink.  But particularly for crimes of passion and anger, very few people stop to think about the penalties–therefore, I don’t think tougher penalties act as a deterrent.

What are you ideas?  Get tougher?  More probation?  More community service?  What can we do?

Same Sex Marriages in the Courts

The Minnesota legislature has voted to put a new amendment to the state constitution on the ballot for next fall.  It would define marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman and not recognize same-sex marriages.

Even though the state already has a law defining legally recognized marriage, proponents still want the amendment.  Why?

Conservatives, who hold the majority in both houses of the state legislature, maintain that a statute (a law passed by the legislature) is vulnerable to judicial review and may be declared unconstitutional.  In contrast, an amendment is a permanent addition to the constitution but cannot be reviewed and struck-down by any court.

Is this a wise idea?

Putting aside the obvious point that we already have such a law on the books, the main concern voiced by proponents is this idea of preventing judicial review.  For years, conservatives have complained about “activist courts” that are outside the control of voters and, on their own, “legislate”  laws that the majority of voters, expressed through their elected officials, don’t agree with.

This may apply at the federal level where federal judges are not elected, are appointed in highly political settings by the president, and serve for life.

But in the state of Minnesota, we elect our judges who serve six-year terms.  To say they are beyond the power of the electorate to change, is not true.  I see a number of problems with the proposed constitutional amendment.

1.  If it passes, it remains attached to the constitution forever unless repealed which is an even more difficult task that the initial passing.  Through-out our history, we have had reason to change amendments such as prohibition.  However, repeal is rare.  For some people, this is good since in spite of the shifting political winds, the law will remain.  The problem is that the shifting political winds usually express the desires of the majority.  The benefit of a democratically elected legislature is to ensure we have flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.  An amendment prevents this.

2.  We don’t need it.  The law in Minnesota already defines what a legally recognized marriage is.

3.  The fear of judicial review is in itself a false fear.  Conservatives are the ones usually complaining about this–unless the review and interference tips in their direction.  Remember the presidential election between Bush and Gore.  The ballot question was strictly a state issue, involving Florida’s ballot laws.  The U.S. Supreme Court decided to interfere and made a ruling.  This is a perfect example of an “activist court.”  We all accepted the ruling because we wanted someone to declare a winner and end the race.  Since Bush won, I didn’t hear any conservatives complaining about the “activist court.”

What’s your position?  Do you fear the courts will interfere in the present law unless Minnesota voters pass a new amendment?

Has Bin Laden Beaten Us At Home?

Beyond the satisfaction that “justice” was done with the killing of Osama bin Laden, he left a legacy in our country and courts that is disturbing to me.

Is that legacy “beating” us now?

After 9/11, the White House and Congress (both parties) passed sweeping legislation which gave our investigatory agencies new powers of intrusion into our lives.  Most people felt these new laws were necessary to discover intelligence and information that terrorists could use against us.  I’m certain that in many instances, the new laws and procedures used by U.S. security agencies worked as the Congress intended.  They also created a massive new system of counterterrorism with huge budgets and more people.

This concerns me because:

1.  The fear that we all felt after 9/11 caused us, as a country, to give our own security agencies more power  to probe into our personal lives much easier.  As an example, the restrictions on wire-tapping and other means of gaining private information were relaxed under the idea of “warrantless surveillance.”  All these laws still remain on the books and are used by the government.  How do we know they won’t be used against innocent citizens under the guise of investigating terrorism?

Think of the internment laws used against innocent Japanese-Americans during the heightened fear of WWII.  In retrospect, we are all embarrassed by these actions and can see clearly how fear drove the Congress and public to enact laws that went much too far in combating internal security risks.

And think of how intrusive and scary the IRS can be…these new laws give the U.S. security agencies a lot more power.

2.  The “War on Terror,” by definition, will go on indefinitely.  Does that mean these intrusive laws will be on the books indefinitely? Have we given-up significant portions of our privacy for ever?  These rights of privacy are uniquely American and I hate to see them compromised.  They protect us from a too-powerful government.  The new laws allow more warrantless surveillance tactics–could these be used against innocent people rather than terrorists?  Who defines what a “terrorist” is?  Will this go on forever?

So, in a way, has bin Laden achieved something more than perhaps he even intended?  Have we Americans given-up our democratic rights of privacy and civil liberties because of the fear he caused?  I hope we never see another attack on our shores, but if that happens will we pass more laws giving-up even more of our privacy?

Public Employees–Cut Back??

With all the national discussion about Public Employees, should we cut back on them?

Before you decide, I’ve got a short story to tell.

I have to disclose from the beginning that I am a public employee and anything I post in this blog is my own opinion and not that of any employer.

Several years ago, many studies were conducted in order to determine the costs/benefits of imprisoning convicted criminals.  After all, the United States puts more people in jail per capita than most other countries in the world.  Through the 80’s and 90’s there was a loud cry from the public to “get tough on crime.”  That meant increasing incarceration penalties for many offenses.

The federal government and many states passed legislation called “three strikes and you’re out,” which meant after three convictions for particular offenses, the criminals were committed to prison.

After several years of incarcerating more criminals, studies revealed the high cost of imprisoning people–and many citizens thought the costs to the taxpayer were too high.

Consequently, in the past ten years, many states have relaxed their imprisonment rules and have relied more on closely monitored probation sentences for many offenders.  Of course, the most hard-core murderers, robbers, drug sellers, and rapists still go to jail.  But those convicted of less serious offenses have been moved to probation status.

It made sense to many people since the costs of probation are minimal, particularly compared to prison where the taxpayer picks up the tab for room and board, education, health care, mental health services, and recreation.

However, to place people on probation and be assured the offenders will not re-offend requires a program of close supervision by trained probation officers.  Although the taxpayer pays for the salary and benefits of probation officers, including health and pension benefits, the total cost is a fraction of that spent on jails and prisons.

Makes sense, huh?

The current political move to “down-size” government and cut back on public employees means that a certain number of probation officers may have to be laid-off.  Or if not, no new hires in the coming years.

At the same time we are letting more people out of prison to be monitored by probation officers, the government is threatening to reduce the number of  public employees–which could include probation officers.  For several years, the judicial branch of government has seen drastic cut-backs in funding which translates to cut-backs in the supervision of offenders.

From my own perspective working in the court system, I’ve seen the results of these cut-backs.  Fewer probation officers labor under larger case loads–meaning they have less time to effectively pay attention to those offenders the officers are responsible for supervising.

I guess the easiest way to say it is:  you can’t have your cake and eat it too!  If taxpayers don’t want to pay for keeping offenders off the streets in prison, then they should be willing to fund for the close monitoring of criminals who are living in our communities.

Think about this when you hear people urging cut-backs in public employees.

An Undiscovered Crime

I’m thrilled because my new book Reprisal will be published September 1 and available for purchase in early September.

It’s a thriller/mystery about an undiscovered crime–terrorists plan to use American children as weapons of mass destruction.  Do you remember all the Somali young men who disappeared from the Twin Cities in the past two years?  They were kidnapped by terrorists in order to carry out their plot.

Small pox was eradicated from the planet in 1979.  As a result, no one has been immunized since then and earlier  inoculations have decayed in effectiveness.  Everyone in the world is vulnerable to the disease.  In 1979 two repositories were set up to store active, lethal viruses for future reasearch needs.  One is at the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta and the other is in Russia.

When a radical Islamic terrorist group steals samples of the virus from Russia, they need human hosts to carry the disease into the schools and infect the entire community.   Led by a brilliant scientist embedded in Minnesota, the release is about to explode until one of the conspirators murders a Somali boy.

The lawyer for the accused murderer is a progressive, feminist American who’s a mainstream Muslim woman.  She hates everything her radical client stands for.  As she investigates the case in preparation for trial, she’s entangled in a race against time to save hundreds of children and the whole community.

One of the themes of the book is religious tolerance; the other is a call to action to mainstream Muslims to speak out against the hijacking of their faith.   The story will educate you about what it’s like to be an American citizen and a faithful, moderate Muslim fighting against the popular impression that all Muslims are extremists. In addition to the story, the defense lawyer goes through her days in court, representing a hilarious group of clients.  You’ll see the back room things that go on regularly and the crazy criminal things people really do.  The characters are based on real-life events, although it would be difficult to put these on reality TV since they’re too real for anyone to believe!

Check out my website to see my upcoming events and book signings.  You can also contact me and let me know how you liked the book.  I look forward to hearing from you. 

Enjoy the book!!

What Made Tom Petters Run?

 

In Minneapolis last week, business mogul Tom Petters was found guilty on all 20 counts for running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded people out of over $3 billion.  What kind of a person would do this?

Although I don’t know Mr. Petters, I’ve worked as a criminal defense lawyer for over 30 years and have represented/defended a few criminals like Petters but never anyone stealing such big. amounts.   Unlike other criminals types, these guys have a unique personality type that’s fascinating.  In addition, I had an uncle (long dead) who operated several scams and Ponzi schemes in the Twin City area before he was chased out of town.  I remember him well.

SKILLS;  Most of these types are very attractive–physically and personally.  You can’t help but like them.  They’re wonderful salesmen with all the skills of the best.  Charming and persuasive, they could lie big–without even a tug from their conscience.  Almost all were smart even if they weren’t well educated.

ATTITUDE:  My uncle and others I’ve represented, shared an attitude that combined arrogance with ambition–not unusal in many people.  The difference was the con men couldn’t wait for their ambiitons.  They couldn’t take the time and effort necessary to build a legitimate business.  Instead, they deserved immediate success.  Most thought they were smarter than others, therefore they didn’t have to wait like the rest of us to grow their businesses. 

Many came from poorer backgrounds and I suspect they harbored a deep suspicion that since things were stacked against them anyway, they may as well steal to get what they deserved.  Each sucker or victim they conned represented a score against the “system” the con men were trying to beat–like a game.  Another skill was the ability to lie convincingly to anyone.  The more intimidating the challenge, the greater the “game” was to the con man.

SECURITY:  Obviously, they coudn’t invest the money they stole so they spent it lavishly.  Security was irrelevant to them–they didn’t have any except for their brains and guts to pull off the next con.  I can’t think of many friends who could live peacefully without some security.  Imagine the type of person who has only their ability to score another con for tomorrow’s food.

Surprisingly, the defendants I’ve represented readily admit their crime when confronted but have always had an excuse or a lie about how things happened to avoid the penalty.

Do you know anyone like this?  What’s their story?  Tell me about the personalities.

Go to my web site at www.colintnelson.com

Somali Women Wonder Where Their Boys Went

Not only in Minneapolis/St. Paul are young Somali men (so young, each one is almost a child victim) mysteriously disappearing, it’s happening across the globe.  In a recent article from the StarTribune by James Walsh and Richard Meryhew, entitled, “Jihad draws young men across globe back to Somalia,” www.startribune.com,  it appears that the recruiting of these men is actually world-wide.

The disappearance of almost 20 men here in Minneapolis in the last few years alerted officials and the FBI to the possibility of recruitng to fight in Somalia.  Since Ethiopia (Christians) attacked Somalia (Muslims) some of these men left the Twin Cities to go back to fight in a group called El-Shabaab.  (People think)  It’s a form of human trafficking.

You may ask why law enforcement here was worried about what happened in Somalia.  If the Somali young men could be recruited to fight in Somalia, could they be recruited to fight back here for a war on America.

Having represented the Somali community for many years in the courts, I’ve found them to be warm, intelligent people.  However, they do not trust many others outside their own tribe.  Even within the Somali community, there are disagreements among the tribes, with some people feeling they are better than others. 

If I have difficulty communicating with them (many speak English) because of this distrust, imagine how difficult it is for law inforcement to get reliable, accurate information about the disappearance of the young men.   To a great degree, law enforcement depends on informants for information.  The word sounds bad but can include almost anyone with access to the community. 

So the common theory is the young men are recruited to fight in their homeland.  What if this theory is correct but incomplete?

Could there be more to the disappearances than we’ve discovered so far? 

Let me know if you think there’s more going on than merely freedom fighting in Somalia.  I’ve got an idea that formed the plot for my new book, “The Concealed Enemy,” coming out in Fall of 2010.  What do you think was really going on with the disappearing men?

Defending Sex Offenders

I know this may sound odd, but one of the more common questions I get as a criminal defense lawyer is:  what’s it like to represent a sex offender?

After 30 years as a criminal defense lawyer, I’ve defended everyone you can imagine, charged with every kind of crime you can imagine.  Still, I have to say that sex offenders are in a category all their own when it comes to criminals.

I think the biggest difference comes from the fact that sexual assault is an “intimate” crime–not that the perpetrator wants “intimacy” with the victim as most of us would consider it.  Almost every other crime I can think of–robbery, theft of a car, assault, and even murder doesn’t involve such close contact with the victim.  Many are accomplished with guns, baseball bats, and other weapons–which usually are used at some distance from the victim.

Sexual assault is really “up close and personal.”  It takes a different type of criminal to commit this kind of crime.

I’m not a psychologist, but in my experience most sexual offenders aren’t really turned on by the sexual act.  Instead, it’s the power and dominance they have for a brief time.  Around men, quite often, sexual offenders are losers and unable to hang with men in easy relationships.  Most sexual offenders I’ve worked with are loners, misfits, or outcasts.  By assaulting women, they “prove” to themselves they are studs and attractive.

One particularly dangerous offender I represented years ago, before his sentencing for several rape convictions, bragged to  the probation officer he’d had sex with 100 women.  That statement showed up in the pre-sentence report to the judge.  At his sentencing, the defendant corrected the report to say he really had sex with over 200 women!!  (If true, I hope they weren’t rapes…)

Almost every offender I’ve represented has denied the act and blamed everything on the woman.  Often, they use force.  When the victim fights back, the offender can accuse the woman of “starting it.”  Even after the victims come into court and testify against the offenders and juries find them guilty, many still deny their guilt.

Guys who are “kiddie twiddlers,” who sexually assault children, are harder to work with.  The usual reaction I get is, “I know I didn’t do it.”  Then, even after I confront them with evidence through statements of the victims, forensic proof, and other witness’ statements, the offenders still deny everything.

At first, I assumed this was simply the usual human response to deny or minimize our guilt for acts we’ve done.  Now, I realize something more subtle is at work.

These men who assault kids find the act inexcusable, like  normal people do.  They think it’s so horrible that they, the offenders, could never possibly have done it because…well, because  “I could never do anything so horrible and gross.”  They block any memory of the act from their conscious minds–which is why they think they’re being honest when they say, “I didn’t do it.”

Any thoughts from you?

Can You Imagine?

Try to imagine living in a neighborhood of small homes.  Your neighbors pay attention to each other and have become friendly.  Some even offer barbeque on the weekends in their front yards.

But there are odd things about this neighborhood that you learn after you’ve moved in.  For one thing, your next door neighbor is a sausage making plant, zoned in the middle of single family homes and a duplex.  Many people are unemployed.  Some homes are abandoned except for the scavengers who steal the copper pipe out of the buildings.  A few drug dealers operate on the edges of the neighborhood.

 You’ve even seen the guy next door laying naked on top of a woman in the bushes at the side of his house, during the day.  Your neighbor, standing beside you, asked him what he was doing. The man apologized and disappeared indoors with the woman.  This same man has a lot of women over to his home.  They come and go regularly.

Then, there’s the strange odor.

You and your neighbors assume it’s the sausage making plant on the corner.  You call the city, who checks things out.  The plant cleans every piece of their equipment and even cleans out the sewer leading  from their plant to the street.  Still, the odor persists.

It smells like a dead dog, like sewage, or rotting flesh.  Yet, the smell goes on for years as you live there.  Once again, the city investigates the sausage plant and forces them to do another cleaning of all their equipment.  Still, the smell persists.

One day, the police receive a tip about Anthony Sowell’s house–the guy who was naked in the bushes with the woman.  They investigate the registered sex offender’s home and start to find dead bodies–eleven of them in total–in various states of decay.

Can you imagine?  Living in this neighborhood?

How could this happen without anyone knowing?  If your neighborhood is like mine, the people are friendly and even get together a few times a year for a block party where we close off the street and drink beer outside.  We ask how things are going but there’s always a line beyond which most people won’t cross–we don’t want to be too snoopy.  Most of all, we don’t want to cause any friction on the block by calling the police on someone else.

In my experience, a couple two doors away (years ago) had obvious marital problems.  Many of us on the block suspected the husband of abusing his wife, perhaps even physically.  In private conversations with her on the front lawn, we made vague offers of help.  But none of us went any further.  The verbal fights and smashing sounds traveled down the street on hot summer nights.  They moved and I hope the wife is all right.

The point is, none of us ever called the police.  What would we say to the cops?  What hard evidence did we have?  Shouting and yelling?  Many couples do that without crossing the line into abuse.

Even with the putrid smell, maybe that’s what happened on the unusual street in Cleveland, Ohio.  What do you think?  How could the alleged murderer get away with eleven dead, rotting bodies on his property?  Let me know what you think.

Next post, I’ll talk about what it’s like to defend serial rapists in trials…

Tracking Human Traffickers in Korea

Part One in Series

Former President Bill Clinton successfully lobbied for the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee from North Korea.  Writing about this at the Women’s Media Center blog, Journalist Ji-Yeon Yuh raises a fascinating and probably accurate question:  What were the two journalists really doing in North Korea?

The North Korean government caught and convicted them of illegally entering the country.  They had to enter illegally because they were tracking the trafficking story of women out of North Korea and into China.  It seems like a problem far away with little we can do to make a difference.  That’s wrong.

The US State Department estimates that as many as 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year and that a total of perhaps 27 million are presently enslaved because of trafficking.  Here’s the scary part for us:  the majority of profits generated ($15.5 billion according to the International Labor Organization) from trafficking comes from industrialized countries–like the United States.

Eighty percent of humans trafficked are women and girls, usually sold into the sex industry.  I know from personal experience…well, let me explain that!

As a lawyer, I have worked in the juvenile courts in Minnesota.  Like all other states, we have a child protection effort, supported by laws, child protection social workers, and prosecutors to enforce the laws.  Most cases involve local parents who are not parenting adequately or present harm to the children. I have been invovled in cases where several young girls have come to Minnesota on a “temporary” basis, mostly from countries in Africa. They’ve been promised jobs and good schools.  When they get here, instead of the promises, they find themselves coerced into the sex industry. 

Ironically, instead of police finding them, they show up in child protection.  Every girl I’ve ever represented has come here, sponsored by an “uncle” who offers them a home, food, and clothing.  When the igirls fail to show up for school, are referred for medical problems, or are stopped as runaways/vagrants, the county government reacts by protecting them from their “families.”

The girls are offered counseling, safe housing, education, and support.  Usually, that works to get them out of the trafficking trap.  But often, I’ve had clients who say they want to get out, are frightened of their “uncles,” and start to take advantage of services.  But then, they fail to come to the next court appearance.  The “parent/uncle” who has been ordered to return and accept services to stop the child abuse disappears also.  My suspicion is they simply move to a different county.  For instance, in Minnesota, if the uncle were to move across the Mississippi River from Minneapolis to St. Paul, he’d be in another county jurisdiction and could start the network all over again.

Some ask, “Can’t the uncle be prosecuted for being a pimp?”  Sure, if you can find anyone to testify against him.  Child protection at least offers the girls an opportunity to escape–if they can and want to.

Internationally, human trafficking generates #32 billion a year in profits according to the Internatinal Labor Organization.  Think about that…doesn’t it seem likely to attract the best criminal minds in the world?  And besides women, what other things are they bringing into the US?  Could they threaten our national security?  Is our government capable of fighting them?  More about this in my next post.