Archive: Apr 2006

the seattle pi has a thought-provoking story today about willard jimerson jr., who at the age of 13 was sentenced as an adult to 23 years in prison for shooting and killing a 14-year-old girl. caught up in the moral panic over a new generation of juvenile “superpredators” in 1994, jimerson was one of the youngest people in washington state’s history to stand trial as an adult.

the article brings up many of the points i highlight in my juvenile delinquency class, from jimerson’s troubled family life, to his adjustment and survival in juvenile correctional facilities and adult prisons, to recent reports from the macarthur foundation about the development of the adolescent brain and young people’s ability to fully understand the consequences of their actions.

jimerson is now 25 and has spent half of his life behind bars. he faces another decade in prison before coming out and facing a world that will be new and strange to him. i’ve written about this transition (using the same title, in fact) from my own research spending time with juvenile inmates who were about to return to the community at age 19 or 20 after several years in a correctional facility. those boys — and they were still boys in many, many ways — were excited but also terrified at the prospect of being out on their own. they faced the daunting tasks of trying to find jobs and apartments, and of navigating new worlds of transportation, bank accounts, and adult responsibilities.

jimerson has spent the last several years taking advantage of the educational and vocational training programs available to him in prison. will he be able to put those skills to use and successfully make the adjustment to life on his own in the community? as the article says:

In his mind, life outside the walls, where most everyone has their own car and moves freely through space, glows like a luminous vision. But his prospects, post-prison, are not bright. When released, Jimerson will be a grown man with a felony murder conviction, minimal education and an estimated $36,000 in court fines.

to saddle jimerson with what must seem a staggering debt adds insult to injury and again shows washington state apparently trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. i hope jimerson can overcome the odds against him and make a successful transition into the community when he is released after two decades in prison. he’ll have paid his adolescence and his young adulthood for a child’s terrible crime. what he’ll do as a free adult will speak volumes about the impact of our Justice system(s) and our communities’ ability to redeem and forgive.

the seattle pi has a thought-provoking story today about willard jimerson jr., who at the age of 13 was sentenced as an adult to 23 years in prison for shooting and killing a 14-year-old girl. caught up in the moral panic over a new generation of juvenile “superpredators” in 1994, jimerson was one of the youngest people in washington state’s history to stand trial as an adult.

the article brings up many of the points i highlight in my juvenile delinquency class, from jimerson’s troubled family life, to his adjustment and survival in juvenile correctional facilities and adult prisons, to recent reports from the macarthur foundation about the development of the adolescent brain and young people’s ability to fully understand the consequences of their actions.

jimerson is now 25 and has spent half of his life behind bars. he faces another decade in prison before coming out and facing a world that will be new and strange to him. i’ve written about this transition (using the same title, in fact) from my own research spending time with juvenile inmates who were about to return to the community at age 19 or 20 after several years in a correctional facility. those boys — and they were still boys in many, many ways — were excited but also terrified at the prospect of being out on their own. they faced the daunting tasks of trying to find jobs and apartments, and of navigating new worlds of transportation, bank accounts, and adult responsibilities.

jimerson has spent the last several years taking advantage of the educational and vocational training programs available to him in prison. will he be able to put those skills to use and successfully make the adjustment to life on his own in the community? as the article says:

In his mind, life outside the walls, where most everyone has their own car and moves freely through space, glows like a luminous vision. But his prospects, post-prison, are not bright. When released, Jimerson will be a grown man with a felony murder conviction, minimal education and an estimated $36,000 in court fines.

to saddle jimerson with what must seem a staggering debt adds insult to injury and again shows washington state apparently trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. i hope jimerson can overcome the odds against him and make a successful transition into the community when he is released after two decades in prison. he’ll have paid his adolescence and his young adulthood for a child’s terrible crime. what he’ll do as a free adult will speak volumes about the impact of our Justice system(s) and our communities’ ability to redeem and forgive.

chris and i have both written recently about women volunteering and working in prisons and falling in love with inmates, often with painful consequences. a story in the miami herald this week reminded me that the lure of the bad boy starts early and runs deep.

in nikki waller’s story, she reports that even as rumors swirled around their high school that three of their classmates were involved in the murder of a homeless man, “several teenage girls who knew what had happened went to the movies, hung out and traded phone messages with the boys.”

the boys, billy ammons, thomas daugherty, and brian hooks, were indicted on charges of attacking and beating three homeless men, resulting in the death of norris gaynor. there is disturbing video on this case: one of the beatings — with the perpetrators hitting the victim with baseball bats — was caught on surveillance video and can be viewed in this news clip.

the three teenage boys are facing the possibility of life in prison; two of them could be sentenced to death, but i think that is unlikely. surprisingly, one of the surviving victims thinks the boys should receive more lenient treatment, saying on the video that the boys are too young to spend their rest of their lives in prison.

billy ammons, who was the last to be arrested, went to a movie with friends the weekend after the attacks. he told a 15-year-old friend that he would be the next to go to jail; she told police she cried but stayed silent. a 16-year-old girl told police: “we basically said, ‘oh it’s messed up, i can’t believe they did that stuff,’ and that was about it. never went into a whole discussion about it.”

there are more egregious examples out there of whole communities keeping silent to protect the reputations of their golden boys, but the nonchalance of the girls in this case raises questions. is this just another case of bad boys proving irresistable and providing vicarious thrills to good girls? are today’s adolescents really more jaded than those of the past?

chris and i have both written recently about women volunteering and working in prisons and falling in love with inmates, often with painful consequences. a story in the miami herald this week reminded me that the lure of the bad boy starts early and runs deep.

in nikki waller’s story, she reports that even as rumors swirled around their high school that three of their classmates were involved in the murder of a homeless man, “several teenage girls who knew what had happened went to the movies, hung out and traded phone messages with the boys.”

the boys, billy ammons, thomas daugherty, and brian hooks, were indicted on charges of attacking and beating three homeless men, resulting in the death of norris gaynor. there is disturbing video on this case: one of the beatings — with the perpetrators hitting the victim with baseball bats — was caught on surveillance video and can be viewed in this news clip.

the three teenage boys are facing the possibility of life in prison; two of them could be sentenced to death, but i think that is unlikely. surprisingly, one of the surviving victims thinks the boys should receive more lenient treatment, saying on the video that the boys are too young to spend their rest of their lives in prison.

billy ammons, who was the last to be arrested, went to a movie with friends the weekend after the attacks. he told a 15-year-old friend that he would be the next to go to jail; she told police she cried but stayed silent. a 16-year-old girl told police: “we basically said, ‘oh it’s messed up, i can’t believe they did that stuff,’ and that was about it. never went into a whole discussion about it.”

there are more egregious examples out there of whole communities keeping silent to protect the reputations of their golden boys, but the nonchalance of the girls in this case raises questions. is this just another case of bad boys proving irresistable and providing vicarious thrills to good girls? are today’s adolescents really more jaded than those of the past?

my wildly creative daughter dropped me an ecard from careerbuilder.com, in which a monkey spake lines she had penned. always a sucker for talking monkeys (insert sociologist/criminologist joke here), i conducted my own experiments. i think talking monkeys could be an effective teaching tool. for example, please allow the primates to lay a little crim theory on you:

let’s start with some robert k. merton, from the oft-cited classic that hooked me on sociological criminology in the first place. if that does anything for you, check out edwin sutherland, my intellectual great-grandaddy. of course, one cannot present sutherland these days without offering a travis hirschi-style control theory rebuttal. labeling perspectives, such as those of edwin lemert and howard becker offer an alternative vision based on the societal reaction to rule-breaking behavior. finally, feminist critiques of male-based theories force a fundamental reexamination of the nature of crime, victimization, and survivorship.

well, that gets me through about 10 weeks of the semester. from now on, i’m delivering all my lectures via monkey. maybe someone could work up a li’l marx, durkheim, and weber for soc 101. why didn’t i monkify my own work? it doesn’t stand up to the classics. for now, i can only dream of someday writing a passage worthy of monkification.

my wildly creative daughter dropped me an ecard from careerbuilder.com, in which a monkey spake lines she had penned. always a sucker for talking monkeys (insert sociologist/criminologist joke here), i conducted my own experiments. i think talking monkeys could be an effective teaching tool. for example, please allow the primates to lay a little crim theory on you:

let’s start with some robert k. merton, from the oft-cited classic that hooked me on sociological criminology in the first place. if that does anything for you, check out edwin sutherland, my intellectual great-grandaddy. of course, one cannot present sutherland these days without offering a travis hirschi-style control theory rebuttal. labeling perspectives, such as those of edwin lemert and howard becker offer an alternative vision based on the societal reaction to rule-breaking behavior. finally, feminist critiques of male-based theories force a fundamental reexamination of the nature of crime, victimization, and survivorship.

well, that gets me through about 10 weeks of the semester. from now on, i’m delivering all my lectures via monkey. maybe someone could work up a li’l marx, durkheim, and weber for soc 101. why didn’t i monkify my own work? it doesn’t stand up to the classics. for now, i can only dream of someday writing a passage worthy of monkification.

what do you do when you’re a child and the lone adult in your house collapses? 5-year-old robert turner did exactly as he had been taught — he called 911 and reported that his mother had “passed out.” unfortunately, the 911 dispatcher demanded to talk to an adult in the house — which was clearly not possible — and then “hanged up” on the boy.

robert called 911 for a second time about three hours later and again told a dispatcher that his mom had passed out. again, the 911 dispatcher demanded to speak to his mother and then threatened the young boy: “Now put her on the phone before I send the police out there to knock on the door and you going to be in trouble.” robert got scared — and frustrated, no doubt — and hung up the phone.

the police (not paramedics) did arrive some time later and found robert’s mother dead. there is speculation that she would have lived had the first 911 dispatcher taken robert’s call seriously and sent help.

this case has ignited controversy and the detroit police department has promised a full investigation. a 911 union president said that more than 25% of calls received are pranks and that robert’s voice was inaudible at times. anyone who has ever tried to hold phone conversations with 5-year-olds can attest that it’s not always easy, but 911 dispatchers have a special responsibility to listen carefully and to act appropriately. if prank calls are such a problem, maybe local agencies should consider instituting small sanctions like assigning the perpetrators some level of community service to discourage such behavior.

celebrity lawyer geoffry fieger has taken on the case, so we should expect a media blitz and a large wrongful death lawsuit. i hope in the midst of the debate we remember that there are children who are alone and afraid and when they find the courage to call for help, it’s our responsibility to make sure they are heard.

what do you do when you’re a child and the lone adult in your house collapses? 5-year-old robert turner did exactly as he had been taught — he called 911 and reported that his mother had “passed out.” unfortunately, the 911 dispatcher demanded to talk to an adult in the house — which was clearly not possible — and then “hanged up” on the boy.

robert called 911 for a second time about three hours later and again told a dispatcher that his mom had passed out. again, the 911 dispatcher demanded to speak to his mother and then threatened the young boy: “Now put her on the phone before I send the police out there to knock on the door and you going to be in trouble.” robert got scared — and frustrated, no doubt — and hung up the phone.

the police (not paramedics) did arrive some time later and found robert’s mother dead. there is speculation that she would have lived had the first 911 dispatcher taken robert’s call seriously and sent help.

this case has ignited controversy and the detroit police department has promised a full investigation. a 911 union president said that more than 25% of calls received are pranks and that robert’s voice was inaudible at times. anyone who has ever tried to hold phone conversations with 5-year-olds can attest that it’s not always easy, but 911 dispatchers have a special responsibility to listen carefully and to act appropriately. if prank calls are such a problem, maybe local agencies should consider instituting small sanctions like assigning the perpetrators some level of community service to discourage such behavior.

celebrity lawyer geoffry fieger has taken on the case, so we should expect a media blitz and a large wrongful death lawsuit. i hope in the midst of the debate we remember that there are children who are alone and afraid and when they find the courage to call for help, it’s our responsibility to make sure they are heard.

washington state has been in the news quite a lot lately with its crime, Justice and voting issues, but shocking stories continue to emanate from the pacific northwest. the latest one to catch my attention is an article in the seattle times about two men facing federal drug charges in tacoma. apparently, federal prosecutors and officials from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives attained a warrant to seize the “grills” or gold-capped teeth from the mouths of the suspects.

the two suspects were told the government had a warrant to seize their grills and that they were being taken to a dentist in seattle for removal. they both managed quick phone calls to their attorneys before being loaded into a vehicle. they were on their way to the dentist in seattle when their attorneys persuaded a judge to stop the seizure.

grills, typically made of precious metals and jewels, come in several different styles. some snap onto teeth like a retainer and are easily removed; others are permanently bonded to the teeth. the two suspects in this case had permanently bonded grills. federal prosecutors claimed that they did not know the grills were permanently bonded to the suspects’ teeth. A spokeswoman for the u.s. attorney’s office explained: “Asset forfeiture is a fairly routine procedure, and our attorneys were under the impression that these snapped out like a retainer.” federal prosecutors abandoned the seizure attempt when they understood that the removal of grills could damage the defendants’ teeth.

i’m not entirely sure i believe the prosecutors’ story, given that they were taking the suspects to a dentist to have the grills removed. if they thought the grills just snapped out, would a trip to the dentist have been necessary?

at any rate, this case is highly disturbing. an expert of forfeiture law claimed he had never heard of anything like this in his 30 years in the field. i’ll give him the last word on this post:

“This is especially egregious because these two had not been convicted and are presumed to be innocent,” added forfeiture expert Troberman, who is not involved in the case. “What are they going to do next? Start taking artificial limbs from amputees?”

washington state has been in the news quite a lot lately with its crime, Justice and voting issues, but shocking stories continue to emanate from the pacific northwest. the latest one to catch my attention is an article in the seattle times about two men facing federal drug charges in tacoma. apparently, federal prosecutors and officials from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives attained a warrant to seize the “grills” or gold-capped teeth from the mouths of the suspects.

the two suspects were told the government had a warrant to seize their grills and that they were being taken to a dentist in seattle for removal. they both managed quick phone calls to their attorneys before being loaded into a vehicle. they were on their way to the dentist in seattle when their attorneys persuaded a judge to stop the seizure.

grills, typically made of precious metals and jewels, come in several different styles. some snap onto teeth like a retainer and are easily removed; others are permanently bonded to the teeth. the two suspects in this case had permanently bonded grills. federal prosecutors claimed that they did not know the grills were permanently bonded to the suspects’ teeth. A spokeswoman for the u.s. attorney’s office explained: “Asset forfeiture is a fairly routine procedure, and our attorneys were under the impression that these snapped out like a retainer.” federal prosecutors abandoned the seizure attempt when they understood that the removal of grills could damage the defendants’ teeth.

i’m not entirely sure i believe the prosecutors’ story, given that they were taking the suspects to a dentist to have the grills removed. if they thought the grills just snapped out, would a trip to the dentist have been necessary?

at any rate, this case is highly disturbing. an expert of forfeiture law claimed he had never heard of anything like this in his 30 years in the field. i’ll give him the last word on this post:

“This is especially egregious because these two had not been convicted and are presumed to be innocent,” added forfeiture expert Troberman, who is not involved in the case. “What are they going to do next? Start taking artificial limbs from amputees?”